1. Rating beers by attributes (look, smell, taste, feel, overall) is back! Read the latest update ...
  2. The wait is over! Download the BeerAdvocate app on iTunes or Google Play now.
  3. Get 12 issues / year of BeerAdvocate magazine for only $9.99!

Budweiser - Anheuser-Busch

Not Rated.
BudweiserBudweiser

Displayed for educational use only; do not reuse.
BA SCORE
56
awful

4,692 Ratings
THE BROS
80
good

(view ratings)
Ratings: 4,692
Reviews: 1,456
rAvg: 2.33
pDev: 33.48%
Wants: 25
Gots: 398 | FT: 0
Brewed by:
Anheuser-Busch visit their website
Missouri, United States

Style | ABV
American Adjunct Lager |  5.00% ABV

Availability: Year-round

Notes/Commercial Description:
Brewed using a blend of imported and classic American aroma hops, and a blend of barley malts and rice. Budweiser is brewed with time-honored methods including “kraeusening” for natural carbonation and Beechwood aging, which results in unparalleled balance and character.

(Beer added by: kbub6f on 11-21-2000)
Beer: Ratings & Reviews
Sort by:  Usefulness | Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Read the Alström Bros Beer Reviews and Beer Ratings of Budweiser Alström Bros
Ratings: 4,692 | Reviews: 1,456 | Display Reviews Only:
Photo of xduderx
1.2/5  rDev -48.5%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Why is this the best selling beer in America??? The easy answer is marketing!!! It's sure not based off of quality or taste.

appearance = very pale and carbonated

smell = not much of one. just typical piss water american macro beer odor

taste = skunky and corny

mouthfeel = thin and bubbly. not terribly pleasing

drinkability = this beer is chock full of impurities and preservatives that give me a massive headache.

xduderx, Jun 09, 2006
Photo of bignick
2.8/5  rDev +20.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

On tap @ Avenue in Allston 6/6/06 for $1. Served in a pint glass.

This is a very average example of the style. It pours a very clear yellow with a minimal head, and there is very little in the smell. The taste is adjuncty, with a hint of hops. It finishes with an unpleasant grassiness, but other than that, pretty clean. It is full-bodied for the style.

I would reach for a PBR or Molson before I reached for a Bud.

bignick, Jun 06, 2006
Photo of goodbyesoberday
4.08/5  rDev +75.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 4 | taste: 4 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.5

Pours very bright, pale with a head that recedes to a thin line around the edge of the glass, acceptable for standard american lager.

Pleasant aroma of light green apples with a cereal sweetness, both carrying through to the flavour. Sweet but with a crisp finish and manages to avoid being watery. Carbonation levels are refreshing without being too fizzy.

Ultimately a clean refreshing american lager that defines the style well, promotes itself to ready drinkability quite well without being too watery and with no other clearly discernible faults.

goodbyesoberday, May 30, 2006
Photo of Erdinger2003
1.3/5  rDev -44.2%
look: 1 | smell: 2 | taste: 1 | feel: 2 | overall: 1

Appearance is weak, the color is barely gold, the head falls and almost dissapears. The lacing is almost non-existant.

Smell is slightly fruity and a little bitter. Fairly weak and I believe I can smell a slight amount of hops.

I can't taste anything at first it's so watered down, the weak malts are barely apparant. This has no body whatsoever and finishes cleaner than water.

Mouthfeel is like water with a tiny amount of carbonation. And it goes down smooth and undetected.

I pray to God I never drink this again.

Erdinger2003, May 29, 2006
Photo of BadBadger
2.23/5  rDev -4.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Hmmm, were to begin? Why would some one drink a "Bud"? Well lets just say it was there and leave it at that. Pours a clear light gold color. There was a nice fizzy head, I won't say foamy as while this was a good size it was lacking in density. The smell is yuck, nothing but corn or rice or what ever adjunct has been added to this brew. The smell does not bring to mind, malts or hops. Taste is bland, no flavor of desire comes through. The mouthfeel is crisp. Beware what you reach for, as you might get one of these, when there are far better American Macros out there.

BadBadger, May 27, 2006
Photo of jerrymiller
2.53/5  rDev +8.6%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

There is one thing I admire about Anheuser Busch, and that is their abilty to inspire firece loyalty. My father-in-law drinks NOTHING but Bud and Michelob and has been living this way for decades—happily. How do they do it? I have offered micros, but they are dismissed, if not met with open hostility.

So, when I drink it, here are my thoughts:
Appearance is thin yellow and watery. A trace of white head can be generated, but it is thin and dissipates quickly. Traces of lacing are minimal.

Smell is of grain with hints of apple—but mostly rice and aluminum. It does smell "clean".

Taste is mild and faintly grassy. It has a distinct metallic note and no noticeable hops. Absolutely no frills. Best served very cold. (when it is warm it defines awful.)

Mouthfeel is ok if you enjoy carbonation. The highlght of this beer is its easy drinkability, the problem is you need to drink volumes of it to appreciate any of the heralded "beechwood aging" process.

Overall, it is the "king" of American macro brewing, so I give credit for that, but praising macro-brewed American beer is a backhanded compliment indeed.

jerrymiller, May 26, 2006
Photo of HochFliegen
2.6/5  rDev +11.6%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

The good ole american macro lager.
Pour is pale yellow with an frothy white head with ok retention.
Smell is slightly earthy or grainy with a hint of green apples nothing else really stands out.
Taste is really mellow with a crisp and dry body with lots of carbonation. Mainly grainy. I think Bud fits the profile of a american macro pretty well.

HochFliegen, May 26, 2006
Photo of DrunkPagan
2.2/5  rDev -5.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

I found myself in the unfortunate position of choosing Bud or sobriety. While not an avid Bud-hater, I wasn't a fan. It's better the colder you get it, which can only lead me to assume that exploding a can in the freezer must be the ultimate way to enjoy the "red menace."
However, with limited choices and friends egging me on, I took one can. I've been drinking heavier stuff lately, so it tasted like water. Slightly flavored water, but still. So I suppose Bud is drinkable, it's just not good. It's appeal is that it has no flavor and it's cheap, like McDonald's. We all cheat a little on our diets. So, Bud is the guilty pleasure of the Beer Nut. After all, it could be worse. It could have a taste.

DrunkPagan, May 24, 2006
Photo of devo
3.43/5  rDev +47.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 4.5

Now Budweiser certainly is not something I would ever choose -- unless, of course, the choice was between Bud or no beer at all, (an unfortunate choice to be forced to make, but a very real one for so many of us, none the less) but it baffles me how almost violently opposed many are to it.

I'm not a lager person and at times find myself speaking disparagingly about anything brewed with the yeast at the bottom but as an example of the style, Budweiser is certainly a very decent representation.

Despite the strong preponderence to serve Bud in its classic, signature bottle, just like with every other beer it is best enjoyed in proper glassware, for this an American pint glass.

It pours clean and light yellow. When in strong light its opacity is near zero but it has a nice head that lingers for a bit.

Slight green apple scent with somewhat stronger metallic character. Not a lot there.

Very lightly flavored, a touch of malt joins the classic, but still mild green apple flavor.

Mouthfeel and drinkability is what this beer is really about. It's cold, crisp and very carbonated. Even if it doesn't really taste like you're drinking a beer, the carbonation is alive in your mouth and livens the experience while still going down very easily.

If for some inexplicable reason you are deciding to drink a Macro American Lager, you can't really do much better than Budweiser.

And, yes, if they had the reach, MGD would try to take over the World Cup too - blame FIFA, not Bud.

devo, May 24, 2006
Photo of pootz
2.83/5  rDev +21.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Date marked bottle:

Ran into this at a barBQ this weekend...a long time since I had a US made Bud. It seems to have upped its quality since I drank it in bordertown taverns in the early 80s. It is at least the equal in quality of the Canadian brewed Bud from Labatt....you know this beer really has an undeserved rep as a crappy cheap beer...It’s made about as well(or better)as any premium US maco and makes it clear that rice is used in the brew.

....this is a pale straw lager with a smallish cap that vanishes quickly to light surface lace...some sticky lace on the glass....heavily carbonated....very light aromas of grains, some smells of fresh paper ( rice?) and the signature granny smith apples...Acetaldehyde is always present in Bud I’m told, as a result of the use of beech wood chips in the aging/flavoring cycle; the chips deactivate the yeast before the green apple smell is metabolized by the yeast....still not an unpleasant odor one would classify as "off".

....the rest of this beer is pretty straight forward and one dimensional...fizzy light body smooth but watery mouthfeel, grainy from 2 row malts, crisp-dry-clean character from the rice, fast dry/clean finish.

The perennial pale US maco lager...that’s all it is and it fills that niche’ well....if you come at it from any other frame of reference you destroy your objectivity

pootz, May 23, 2006
Photo of Contra
1.83/5  rDev -21.5%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

I feel obligated to review a beer which claims to be "the king of all beers". Like most, I've consumed this a number of times when I first started drinking beer. Like most who've moved onto better beers, I now find "Bud" to be far below the standard of beers. Still, there is a reason why it is popular; Bud & Bud lite manage to provide a bland & often inoffensive beer with the bottomline - which is alcohol, of course.

So what does Budweiser taste like? Almost nothing really. Bud has a "clean" taste compared to the bottom rung beers... but tastes rather impure compared to what brewers are capable of. It's easy to see why it's so popular, but for anyone who is looking to experience "beer", there is little to offer. Hops aren't present, and neither are the malts. Just rather bland beer.

Contra, May 23, 2006
Photo of UncleFlip
1.33/5  rDev -42.9%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 3 | overall: 1

This thing somehow showed up in my fridge. Not sure how, but what the heck, let's clear it out...

Huge white foamy head tops a liquid that's just the yellow side of water, and amazingly clear.

Smell is almost non-existent. there's a hint of spice and malt here, but not enough to really register without a huge whiff.

Flavour is incredibly thin. There's a touch of stale spice up top, and just the barest hint of some dry maltiness down below- but not much to go on here.

Mouthfeel is OK. It;s thin, and there's an adquate bit of carbonation.

Drinkability is a 1. there's nothing at all here to keep me interested. There's little aroma, and almost no flavour.

Be well
-UF

UncleFlip, May 21, 2006
Photo of bluejacket74
2.7/5  rDev +15.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 4

I'm supporting my local macro-brewery, since AB has a facility in Columbus. This Budweiser was from a Dale Jr. 22 oz bottle, served in a weizen glass. It pours a light yellow/gold color, with a inch or so head. Even a minute or so after pouring the beer, there is still a bit of carbonation, with little bubbles coming up from the bottom of the glass to the top. It smells pretty much like most macro products, with a corn/grainy smell. It's a very light beer, with a thin watery mouthfeel. It goes down extremely easy, very drinkable. Not much flavor at all, and not much aftertaste either. The only flavor I could really tell was the grainy/adjunct flavor of most macro-beers. I guess that's not completely a bad thing, because it is pretty non-offensive and easy to drink. The Budweiser was dated about 3 months since the born-on date, but it tasted the same as fresher Bud I've had. It's OK for a macro-lager. A good session beer if you want to drink something without too much taste to it. Nothing great, but there are worse beers out there.

bluejacket74, May 21, 2006
Photo of goochpunch
3.43/5  rDev +47.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 5

Pours a pale neon yellow with a thin, fizzy head that settles out quick. Really faint aromas of grain and rice, but it's very subtle. Very weak flavors that were present in the nose, but this has a nice and crisp flavor, nevertheless. Extremely dry in the finish with a bit of bitterness, surprisingly. Mouthfeel is typical: light and bubbly. This is a lot better than I remembered, honestly. It is far from being really flavorful, but I could easily knock these back with glee.

goochpunch, May 20, 2006
Photo of blackie
3.1/5  rDev +33%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

appearance: Pours a 1.25" white head that steadily fizzes down. The beer is a clear, pale hay color.

smell: There is a light sweetness and an aroma of pale barley and rice adjunct. The very light touch of hop aroma actually smells somewhat green and fresh.

mouthfeel: The carbonation is between high-medium and light-high, and the body light and thin.

taste: Tastes of weak pale barley malt and adjuncts. Practically no hop flavor and just a touch of bitterness. Finishes with a lingering adjunct lager flavor. An artificial, industrial, gross aftertaste lingers on the tongue.

drinkability: Relatively inoffensive I guess, but still not very drinkable.

"Born on" April 10, 2006

a few scores updated 7-7-08 after a nice time having a few Buds on a July 4th trip to Oriental, NC

blackie, May 16, 2006
Photo of ericj551
2.95/5  rDev +26.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

Light golden color, similar to hard cider, but with a slighly nicer head. It has a grainy smell, no hops noticeable. Taste is dry and inoffensive, no real malty flavor, just the light graininess. Overall a pretty drinkable beer, although I wouldn't pay for it, I'll drink it when its left in my fridge.

ericj551, May 10, 2006
Photo of HoustonTX
1.85/5  rDev -20.6%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Appearance - Very yellow, with little to no head, no lacing and lack of carbonation.

Smell - Skunky smell with a hint of grain.

Mouthfeel - Watery, and slighty easy to go down.

Taste - Taste is not good with almost a bitter taste.

Drinkability - Is decent if this is your thing. Otherwise avoid.

Avoid this beer if at all possible, possibly the worst lager I have ever had.

HoustonTX, May 09, 2006
Photo of harpo111
2.23/5  rDev -4.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Bud is bud...you get what you expect... a marco american..
apprearance: nice yellow with a 1 inch head on it.
smell: a little grainy, with a slight pungentness...almost metalic
taste: watery, carbonated, slight hops..not much....
mouthfeel: thin...carbonated..fizzy...like sodapop
drinkablilty: you can do a lot of these easy..not that i would want to...doesn't fill you up fast...good for a hot day to cool off..
average..

harpo111, May 09, 2006
Photo of CastAStone
3.75/5  rDev +60.9%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4.5

Oh Budweiser...

So this is the King of Beers. And you know what? For a macrobrew, they're probably right. Bud changed their recipe recently, according to the Wall Street Journal, adding more hops, so I decided to try and review.

A: Pours alright, even from a can. Nice head, dissapated slowly. Better color than I remember.

S: It smells like Bud/Miller/Coors/Molson, slightly hoppy and crisp. A little stronger than Coors or Molson, and weaker than Miller. Its a good smell but fairly weak.

T/M: Bud tastes like Beer. When I think beer, I think the taste of Bud. A little hoppy, full flavored, more malted feel than than some other macros. Finishes extremely clean. This is the fullest lager flavor you can get at 50 cents a can, hands down (though for the price I prefer Labatt Blue, a malty Pilsner).

D: It's Budweiser - its engineered to get "real americans" drunk quick. It drinks well, though not as well as a crisp IPA (or for that matter a light beer...if you go for that sort of thing)

As I said, its about the best you can get for your money.

CastAStone, May 07, 2006
Photo of FenwaySquid
3.73/5  rDev +60.1%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Presentation: 24 oz can, "born on" date of April 5, 2006, poured into a conical shaped pilsner glass.

Appearance: Pours a pale bright golden yellow color, about 2 fingers of head. Carbonation was faint, maybe because I couldn't fit the whole offering into the glass. Oh well.

Aroma: Very mettalic, nothing else.

Taste: Faint hoppy flavors up front with a hint of apples (the beechwood chips, maybe?) in the middle. The finish is almost clean, but there are some hops thrown in there at the very end.

Mouthfeel: Crisp and refreshing, there is also more carbonation than the glass let on.

Overall: Before I ventured into the realm of beeradvocacy, this was my favorite. And still, when I'm stuck at a party or in a bar with only macro swill to drink, this is what I reach for. And why not? budweiser is has infinitely better flavor than its ligher (or liter) cousins. For what it is, a mass marketed beer made with the intent of broad appeal, there's still a good amount of flavor packed inside, it's still very drinkable, and I have trouble not enjoying it. On the other hand, there's nothing memorable about the beer, no flavor that sticks out and makes you say "Oh yeah, that's why I like budweiser." Also, from my pre-beeradvocacy experiences, I can say that this beer, when consumed in large quantities, will produce a monster hangover.

FenwaySquid, May 05, 2006
Photo of PuckLSHS
2.45/5  rDev +5.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

You know, for a macro this has to be one of my "Okay, I will buy this" kind of beers.

The beer pours very pale with nice little beads of carbonation. I usually get about a 1 finger head on the beer that dissipates at an average rate.

clean, crisp...because of the added rice...yes, we all know this. The beachwood aging also helps give it flavor.

For a nice summer day with a college students' wallet, this beer works.

PuckLSHS, May 04, 2006
Photo of BigD1972
3.7/5  rDev +58.8%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Light yellow/amber in color

Nothing special about the smell.

It is very drinkable not bad tasting (Better than Coors) typical American larger

Goes down smooth, no aftertaste. I have had many on a nice warm day and while I dont think it is the "King of Beers" it is one of my favorite Macro Brews

BigD1972, Apr 25, 2006
Photo of bigdeuce
3.15/5  rDev +35.2%
look: 2.75 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 3.75 | feel: 1.75 | overall: 3.25

Hey, it's budweiser, what can you expect. They lie on every add, well, coors lies a little more. Bud is actual drinkable if you haven't had any micros beforehand. Has a little taste, no smell, no hops, not much life. But if you're gonna drink an american macro, bud should probably be the choice.

bigdeuce, Apr 24, 2006
Photo of mcowgill
2.78/5  rDev +19.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Pours an almost crystal clear pale yellow. Nothing distinctive at all. The Narragansett I just had was more appealing. Not much at all in the smell department. I do enjoy the taste of a Budweiser now and again though, especially in the summer or at a baseball game or watching football. This is the easy drinking beer for the masses and although I don't reach for it often, I never turn it down either.

mcowgill, Apr 23, 2006
Photo of GuinnessHero
3.25/5  rDev +39.5%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Let's keep this simple. This is a beer that is world renowned, and will continue to be that way as long as marketing has it's way.

Appearance - Yellow, very typical color with a small head that dissipates through the beer.

Smell - Slightly metallic, with a strong smell of rice and hops.

Taste - Full flavored unlike it's sister beer Bud Light. Very clean finish with a touch of hops and carbonation. Very tolerable.

Mouthfeel - Clean as it hits the pallet and very refereshing.

Drinkability - The best part of this beer. Very refreshing and decent taste makes it a decent beer in my book. Great for a hot afternoon in the south like I am.

Overall, this is not as offensive as everyone says it is. Ice cold, it can be a great beer, and compared to some of the things coming from Asia and other rice-based beers, this is a great beer for using rice. Give it a chance, and it will actually be a party favorite.

Keep an open mind.

GuinnessHero, Apr 14, 2006
Budweiser from Anheuser-Busch
56 out of 100 based on 4,692 ratings.