Budweiser | Anheuser-Busch

1,650 Reviews
no score
Send samples

Brewed by:
Missouri, United States

Style: American Adjunct Lager

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 5.00%

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.

Added by kbub6f on 11-21-2000

For Trade:
View: Beers | Events
User Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters
Reviews: 1,650 | Ratings: 6,061
Photo of metallistout
2.18/5  rDev -10.3%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

The "King of Beers" huh? Maybe one of the better american macro beers, but that's not saying much.
Pours a very straw-like pale yellow with a small foamy head.

Smells of corn, rice, and very little malt. I cannot smell a hop presence. Maybe they put the hops in for 1 minute or 2 and then strain it out.

Taste of a very little amount of malt, mostly corny and whatever. Very small amount of hops. This beer probably wouldn't be so bad it it had more hop bite to it.

 472 characters

Photo of barknee
2.53/5  rDev +4.1%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

We have had this pouring in my Firehouse for the last 100 years. I have to say that on tap, unlike virtually every other tap macro product, Bud simply sucks. Massively over carbonated with an overly heavy, almost oily composition for the product, this mass macro is sure to leave you wanting for more and wanting for less of cerebral pulsations. Highly disappointing on tap, the product is better tasting in every other available packaging known to mankind. Yes even the dreaded aluminum can.

 492 characters

Photo of davidchollar
2.2/5  rDev -9.5%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

bought this tonight at my local store that carries a lot of foreign beers. haven't had a bud in ages but i thought i should review it to see how it compares to j-macs (japanese macros) i never thought i would score it this high, but again, like with heineken i think this beer gets bashed way more than it deserves. it's really not that bad. obviously it's not as orgasmic as the last birra trappista you quaffed, but it's not dog shit.

a very pale clear yellow, decent white head. this does not look as bad as you would expect, certainly equal to or better than some j-macs. smells corny, extremely corny, not much for your nose, not too bad either although there is a definite chemical metallic scent that's not too inviting

not impressed, but not repulsive. easy going down but i give it a low drinkability score because it's SO BORING. if you give me 1 minute i can name 100 beers with more taste and more character that would be more fun to drink.

 958 characters

Photo of Finite
3.15/5  rDev +29.6%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3.5

Very pale yellow. With a reasonable head. The smell was on the weaker side but perhaps some citrus hops suggesting a refreshing taste.

This beer is refreshing and does contain some complex flavours. A lite citrus hop profile well balanced bitterness and deep bready malts. Malt and hop profiles last on the palette.

I have no problems saying that I like this beer. I dont care what other beer snobs have to say because it is marketed to perfection and doesnt lie. Its a consistently reasonable beer for a reasonable price and thats all it wants to be. It is an American Adjunst Larger and its probably one of the best.

So leave it alone, if you don't like it then don't drink it but certainly don't bag it for doing what its trying to do well.

 748 characters

Photo of jarmby1711
1.78/5  rDev -26.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

rather pale with little head retention , beyond the initial pour.When it was there it was fine and white.The beer laced to the bottom of the glass.
The smell was uninteresting macro lager stale water/chemical Typical and boring.
Initially this tasted like a cross between macro lagers typical of Europe and Australia.
The maltish background (Europe) was contrasted and not particularly well harmonised with a dull bitterness(Australia).
At first I thought it was going to be an acceptable compromise, but the more of the glass I drank I realised it was only emphasising the worst of the 2 styles.
I had little expectation , but felt obliged to drink and review one of the worlds most popular beers
It is not surprising that Craft beers are becoming popular in the US if this is the standard fare

 801 characters

Photo of AltBock
1.41/5  rDev -42%
look: 2 | smell: 1 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1.5

After watching the History Channel's Modern Marvels about Brewing, I thought I might give this a try. I got this at the VFW for $1 bottle and somebody bought this for me. Good thing too.

Poured a pale yellow color with a head the dissipated fast. The only aroma that I smelled was just some kind of sweet smell. Not sweet hops or malt, just sweet. The taste was that of bland grains and nothing else. The mouthfeel was that of an average macro, watery and light. Since this beer is cheap, you could drink a couple of these in a sitting.

 539 characters

Photo of allengarvin
2.46/5  rDev +1.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2

Brought home a can from a party at work. Worth an extra review at least. Pours out a bright, crystal clear gold color. Bubbles stream up through it, though the head faded away to nothingness pretty quickly. Grainy, sweet nose. Flavor is light, almost tasteless malt, with no detectable hops and only the vaguest of bitterness. Finishes clean and, well, empty. Very light bodied.

Budweiser does compare favorably, in my opinion, to Coors, Miller, and many other mass American lagers, in that it has no unpleasant character. Thus I give it a slightly below-average score. Nothing especially good, but nothing too bad either. Just.... mediocre.

 644 characters

Photo of assurbanipaul
2.11/5  rDev -13.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

Pours a very, very pale yellow with a steady foamy head that stays for quite a while. Nose is very slight and grassy with a faint urine aroma.

Taste is neutral, a little sweet. Light grainy flavor, no sign of bitterness or hops, not real malty either. Not a whole lot of anything, finishes clean, no off flavors.

Mouthfeel is smooth but very light and watery, might even be considered refreshing. There is very little bad to be said about this beer -- it is decent and clean -- but there is also very little good to contribute as it is too much "like sex in a canoe."

 573 characters

Photo of beersarang
2.65/5  rDev +9.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Golden clear with white head.

Faint grain aroma.

Thin malt with grains and rice husk on the palate with an unobtusive bitterness. Finishes so clean, really clean.

Light just short of watery bodied crisp carbonation.

So thirst quenching but gosh darnit thats not why beer was invented. Better than the other macros, but not the "King of Beers" by any means.

 368 characters

Photo of CAMRAhardliner
2.11/5  rDev -13.2%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

I had this at sports bar with only macros on tap. Its really pale, like a helles mixed with 2/3 water. The head is average and leaves a good amount of lace. The aroma is very light and just a bit of malt and rice. The taste is watery with a tight malt base and a bit of hops and plasticy flavors mixing. Rice but thankfully not DMS is evident. The mouthfeel is thin and highly carbonated.

I only had one pint. Absolutely boring, just like crappy Canadian macros. Maybe better in that there arent any nasty vegetal flavors, just rice.

 536 characters

Photo of nicksta
1.94/5  rDev -20.2%
look: 3 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

I didn't expect the "King of Beers" to be this underwelming. It pours a fairly deep gold color. The beer has a fair amount of a frothy head which suggests carbination. The head doesn't stick around long however. The smell is bad, sickly sour. The taste isn't very strong at all. It reminded me of a light beer. The blandness of rice is there but no hops. It is very drinkable, which is the best quality of this beer. The hops do show up once the beer gets a little wamer. This decreases the drinkability however because it also turns sharp and sour like the smell, besides nobody wants warm beer. So basically this beer is only good for some ice cold chuging. I would never buy it myself but I guess it is a good party beer because it is weak and appeals to the average High School student.

 790 characters

Photo of alysmith4
3.66/5  rDev +50.6%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 4 | feel: 3 | overall: 4

For it's category, availability, and cost.. this is one of the best in it's class. Nothing can touch it on a hot summer day, and the aluminum cans can go virtually anywhere. And don't bother putting it in a glass.. it's best to drink it straight from the bottle or can. Gourmet beers have their place, but Bud should be appreciated and enjoyed for what it is.

 359 characters

Photo of nekronos
3.8/5  rDev +56.4%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 4

This beer was not that bad either. You can sense the rice in it, bud it is actually good, not great, but is a new sensation in your tongue. NOt like other beers with rice aditives. Actually it made it a little more interesting than more beers from macros. The only bad thing is about the name stealling, but the label is nice.

 326 characters

Photo of jasongootjes
3.39/5  rDev +39.5%
look: 2 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Budweiser, the king of beers, well not quite. Before I really got to know beer this was my favorite beer. Now that I have experienced a much more broad range of beers I have changed my tune. Its a decent beer, boarderline good. It does bring back some very good memories, but overall just an average beer.

 305 characters

Photo of ozmodium
2.1/5  rDev -13.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

Sickly yellow coloured pee water. Absolutely clear though. The head was white and frothy, tiny bubbles, didn't stick around and left no lacing.

Smells of machine processed barley and left over rice abound. At least there's a hoppy crispness that balances the aromas.

I think theres an unsually large amount of salt in this stuff, not to the point of being overly salty, but a noticeable saltiness. A little bit of sweetness is evident and the hops do an ok job balancing that out as well. Its rather sour aftertaste isn't exactly appealing though.

Too much fizz to allow for a nice feeling in the mouth...sort of like eating pop rocks and coca cola. It actually foams in your mouth, and the bubbles tingle the inside of your cheeks and scratch the back of your tongue.

Although the taste isn't too bad, the feeling that this stuff gives your mouth is unforgiveable.

 880 characters

Photo of lagrin
2.7/5  rDev +11.1%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

Poured into an Ayinger willybecher glass. Crystal clear, light gold in color. A surprisingly small amount of bubbles. Almost no head, just a broken ring of foam around the inside of the glass.

Smell is almost non-existent - maybe a wisp sweetness - can't identify this sweetness as being malt. I don't detect the acetaldehyde "green apple" aroma that this beer is famous for....Actually, if I really think about it, I think I get a little "jolly rancher" artificial apple aroma. I really have to imagine hard to smell it, I don't know if I would identify this if I wasn't looking for it. Absolutely no hop aroma.

Taste is no offensive and bland. The slight sweetness is well balanced with a light hop bitterness.

The texture of this beer complements its bland aroma and taste. It is very light and fizzy on the palate, it seems thinner than water. Although I consider the beer to be boring I do find it to have a pleasant texture.

Drinkablity: Overall, the beer is easy to consume -- almost no taste and absolutely nothing offensive about it. It feels good in the mouth and is light and non-filling. I gave this beer a low score on drinkablity because there is nothing about it that would make me desire another. I do believe that it is possible to make a beer like this more interesting without departing from the basic style paradigm.

 1,352 characters

Photo of bighoppymonster
2.2/5  rDev -9.5%
look: 1.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Pours a very pale yellow, would have thought this was a light beer had I not know any better. Active carbonation forms a thin lacy white head. Not much going on in the nose at all. Maybe tiny traces of grain, corn to be specific. Very bland in taste as well. Is rather sweet, again, taste small traces of corn. A decent body for a macro, and I could easily put a few of these down (not that I would want to). Overall, not good, but not terrible. It does what it sets out to, I suppose, and that is giving the American public a beer that can go down easy and often.

 564 characters

Photo of Daredevil
1.43/5  rDev -41.2%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

The fact that this is one of the top 5 selling beers in the world is proof that Anheuser Bush cannot be making everything wrong. For me it is also proof the average beerdrinker is not necessarily being an epicure or a beeradvocate in reference to this fabulous website.
Not adhering to the "Deutsche Reinheitsgebot" is rarely a sign of quality and the use of rice is here obviously made for economic reasons rather than in attempt to enrichen taste.
As someone put it, this is rather water with an infusion of beer taste than a beer itself (tastewise not with regards of it's ABV).

 583 characters

Photo of niangelo
1.86/5  rDev -23.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

My uncles bought this fine brew for Canadian thanksgiving. Not to kick a gift horse in them mouth, I accepted a brew. I didn't pour it, and I made damn sure it was ice cold.

First I studied the label. It actually says "We know of know other beer the costs so much or takes so long to brew". Right. Later on the label it actually proudly lists rice as one of it's pure ingredients. Off to a bad start.

I don't even smell this one. Not worth it. Taste is sweeeet, almost syrupy. Must be the "Beechwood aging process" that produced that. I think I can hear Anhueser executives laughing in the distance.

This is like getting shot in the face with a corn gun. Best drunk when screaming at a football game and eating hot wings, so as to mask the flavor.

 756 characters

Photo of tesguino
1.1/5  rDev -54.7%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

it is the worse beer than I have proven in my life, its flavor to rice, also lets much flavor to me to sugar I do not recommend it, all the beers of anheuser busch know me the same thing , this beer forme not had a appeararance, smell, taste or mouthfeel.

 255 characters

Photo of IronDjinn
2.1/5  rDev -13.6%
look: 2 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

I've had enough Budweisers in my life, mostly offered to me, that there was a reason I tended to steer clear of them, it just wasn't what I was looking for in my beer drinking. Never occurred to me to review it until a recent thread got a little out of hand getting the consistency of the stuff confused with the quality of the stuff. Apropos to that, I thought I'd finally come to my own official opinion and review the stuff.

Went all out for this one, skipped over the 24 pack with free t-shirt, and grabbed a 950ml tallboy can instead. No freshness date to be found on the can, but there is some sort of cryptic stamp on the bottom of it. Pours out of the can a pale uninspiring clear yellow, but with an impressive 2-finger snow white head. It was a nice show while it lasted, as retention leaves a great deal to be desired.

Faint aroma, not much to pick up except some thin malt and a hint of sour grains. After a while that mild sourness is all I can pick up, not that it is very overpowering, but there really isn't anything else on the radar.

Flavour? What flavour? This stuff is bland, honestly, honestly bland, almost as if flour were used as an adjunct instead of rice. It's not a bad flavour per se (until it warms up a bit), but the fault of this lager is the near complete and utter lack of flavour. As a regular Budweiser drinker, and there are many many of you out there, you're obviously not drinking this alcoholic beverage for the sake of the taste--perhaps the lack of taste--, so are the vast hordes of Bud drinkers out there just drinking Bud to get drunk? A little tipsy watching the game? A faint buzz after work? All the hype must surround the consistency of how bland and unthreatening this beer is, a beer for people who don't like the taste of beer. Or is that Bud Light?

As the realm of most macro produced lagers lies within the fizzy watery texture, I have to admit this Bud I'm sampling has a decent mouthfeel for the style, all things considered. Hell, I've tried pale ales and ambers more watery than this stuff. Bud, you get a straight C for average for mouthfeel, which is better than most of your cousins can do. No caustic burn across the palate and down the throat with poorly mismanaged adjuncts, you keep your additives and preservatives in line, and I will salute that at least.

Overall I can't see myself ever buying another Budweiser again, I paid my ticket for the ride, took the trip, and walked away with no thrills, and yet no spills. Mediocre to the extreme, the wishy-washy middle road. The Charlie Brown of beers in fact, always talks a good game but continually fails to kick that football in the end. I have no doubt in my mind that they spend unfathomable amounts of money to produce this beer, to use quality ingredients, to maintain state-of-the-art sanitized production facilities. And yet in the end they waste all of that producing this wallflower of a beer, which requires countless amounts of clever advertising dollars to market. After all, without the help of a well-paid PR department, you wouldn't approach this easily overlooked kid at the high school dance either. It's all about hype, not substance.

 3,186 characters

Photo of xoqx
3.02/5  rDev +24.3%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 3

I was given this in a blind taste test. This is something everybody should try. I was able to identify it as a macrobrew based on some of its characteristics (thank goodness) but I believe everybody that slams this beer would think differently if they tasted it blind. It has more malt goodness than you'd think. I rated it, as one should, against the rest of the American Macro Lager style.

Appearance: Pale yellow with quickly receeding head and no retention, very slight lacing.

Smell: I was surprised by how malty the smell is. There were very few traces of corn or rice in what I smelled. I was tasting this totally blind, in a glass, and from the smell I would have guessed this was a strong-ish lager… that was obviously dashed once I tasted it.

Taste: The taste is malty, and I did not detect the corn/rice until about my 4th sip. It's rather undercarbonated and very watery. I thought this might have been a home brewed lager where not enough malt was used. There is a very short guest appearance of hops like somebody running past a window. I think this is a decent beer and one that people would enjoy more/rate higher if they tasted it blind like I did. I was still able to identify it as an American Macro Lager after a few sips, but the lack of expectation allowed me to appreciate that this is an average beer.

Mouthfeel: The mouthfeel is light, watery and insubstantial.

Drinkability: This is a drinkable beer. That is partially due to its being so light and watery. It would be more drinkable if it had a little more going on. Its price makes it somewhat drinkable too.

 1,602 characters

Photo of jasonmac
2.5/5  rDev +2.9%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

(glassware): 20 ouce glass pint

(temperature): 42F/6C

(appearance): pale yellow/straw color; head foams slightly and dissipates quickly. On a carbonation scale of 1-10 (10 being fizzy soda pop), this is a 6.

(smell): Nothing outstanding, bit of a grassy nose, otherwise clean.

(taste): Small amount of hops noted, mostly rice.

(mouthfeel): Smooth but thin (to me).

(drinkability): Not horribly bad on a warm summer day, could have one or two before switching to something else. Like other 'cheaper' brands, I tend to use Bud as a thrist-quencher.

(foods that pair well): pizza, spicy (Indian curry in my case).

 631 characters

Photo of cracgor
2.46/5  rDev +1.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 3

This pours clear, pale/golden in color with a white foamy head (decent retention). Little smell to it, but a little fruity. Taste is a little overly sweet for me. Mouthfeel is what you could expect, light clean and fizzy. Not especially drinkable because of flavor, but it is what it is, easy to drink.

 302 characters

Photo of daliandragon
1.93/5  rDev -20.6%
look: 2 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2.5

Ah, the self styled "King of Beers". My disdain for it has grown rapidly as I've aged as a drinker and a man but I still have a small modicum of repect for it..maybe its a patriotic thing...plus some of their commercials have been among my all time favorites.
Real pale, dull yellow color with an amazing disappearing head.. Strong nose of rice malt, not so tasty .
The taste is distinctive without being good. It's true that nothing else tastes quite like it but that's probably by choice. A little hoppy bitterness is a positive but otherwise the taste is flat and watery, thin but sudsy in your mouth..not smooth or satisfying.
I don't hate this beer but I wouldn't drink it except in an emergency

 704 characters

Budweiser from Anheuser-Busch
2.43 out of 5 based on 6,061 ratings.
  • About Us

    Your go-to website for beer (since 1996), publishers of BeerAdvocate magazine (since 2006) and hosts of world-class beer events (since 2003). Respect Beer.
  • BeerAdvocate Microbrew Invitational

    Join us June 2-3, 2017 in Boston, Mass. for beer, cider, mead, kombucha and sake from over 70 small producers.

    Learn More
  • Subscribe to BeerAdvocate Magazine

    Support uncompromising beer advocacy and award-winning, independent journalism with a print subscription to BeerAdvocate magazine.