What’s The Difference? Share Your Side By Side (2026)

This is another thread I debated starting this year, but I had such a great opportunity to do a vertical that I figured I would get it going in 2026. Last year's thread had a good number of people sharing their comparisons. And that is really all this thread is about - if you have two or more beers you decide you want to compare against each other, for whatever reason, record the results here. If you see a comparison that someone else posts that you have done before, feel free to recall your thoughts to those reading this thread.

And in the end, what were the differences and similarities that you found in your comparison, and did you expect them? Or were there more or less things that differentiated the offerings?

My opening salvo is one I will not be able to repeat, unlike comparisons I have done in the past. It is a vertical, with five years between the offerings. And there are four beers in this tasting, all Bigfoot by Sierra Nevada.


The 2011 and 2016 came in a box purchased from the brewery during COVID. I purchased the 2021 and 2026 over time, the latter just this week. The 2016 and 2021 have been in the fridge for a while now (I forget when I put each in, but within the past two years, most likely). The 2026 went in straight from the store, and the 2011 has been in our cellar since purchased.

That aside, we'll start with looks, as there are differences on the pour:

• 2011 - cloudiest with a burnt orange color to it; quite a nice fluffy head
• 2016 - clear shiny rusty amber with a modest head
• 2021 - slightly hazy with a matte amber color; seems the lightest head of the group (along with 2016)
• 2026 - About the same as 2016 in color, but with a nice fluffy head pretty much like 2011

Moving right along with the nose:

• 2011 - caramel, earthy herbal flecks, a hint of warming spice; some grassiness evolves; a hint of treacle and honey on the sweeter side at times
• 2016 - I note the treacle more first, maybe as a follow on from the 2011; the earthy herbs are there, but with a lean toward pine needles
• 2021 - seemingly the lightest nose, but overall quite similar to 2016 on the sweet side without much from the hops - odd
• ... but not as odd as the 2026, which has a bit of a skunk note to it
• 2026 - beyond that, the herbal / spice note is more a mix of celery leaf and sassafrass

So, it seems to me that the nose actually is worse on the newer beers than the older ones, which is a bit baffling. Time to dive into the taste (gonna go in reverse here):

• 2026 - a medium malty base with the earthiness I always get in Bigfoot; more spruce than pine initially, but each sip evolves as it lingers, turning more herbal and piney; drying finish
• 2021 - a bit more malt in the opening, giving a more full mouthfeel; more earthy and less evergreen overall; the pine eases into the finish as I take a few more sips; more balanced than 2026
• 2016 - the hops in this one are more forward than the 2021; a bit thinner mouthfeel that 2021 and less effervescent than 2026 with a higher note of malty sweetness - more light caramel; bitterness starts a mix of pine and grass, leaning more into the pine late
• 2011 - seems a mix of 2021 and 2016 in many ways, with a more forward hoppiness, but one that is more evergreen right away; this is the first one I get some citrusy notes in (going back, I get a little in 2021 and might imagine a dash in 2016 but not really in 2026); overall, a bit more floral (the whole flower, including stem) than any of the others, as well

So I sipped about half of each of these to type up those notes. I think I like the 2011 the best, though the 2021 is right there as well. The 2016 is just a little flat, comparatively, when I rapid succession them.

And the 2026 is just a bit spicy and bracing, in a way, compared to the others. The GF and I both liked it the least. I am not claiming any brewing / handling flaws, but there are some notes that remind me of them.

So I will wrap this up (I might do a follow-up post if something changes). You do not have to go as in depth as I did to post in this thread. I just tend to be wordy, and this was a special comparison for me. Just talk about what you learned by directly comparing things. Cheers, all!

 

Thank you. If trying to match the breadth of this tasting matterd, I will not be able to do a follow up post for a year, myself.

Having a helper is often key. The bottle-capper I have from my home brew days paired with careful uncapping is another useful tool/technique when the ABV gets up there. I appreciate your posts to these threads in the past, when you can find time to sneak them in

As a brief follow up to my original poost (still have a little left in my two favorites):

• I combined in about a 1:2 ratio the 2026 into the 2016 and it was a fine combination
• The GF decided she didn't want to finish her 2026, so I got a couple extra ounces... yay?
• I am still leaning towards the 2011 as my favorite, but it is really close

Cheers!

 

So, an opportunity presents, and...

Knowing no one in the WBAYDN would want the details, I decided to post them here - Sip of Sunshine, can vs glass:


Out the gate:
Looks: well... duh!
Smell: glass wins, a bit less easily than I expected
Taste: I get less sweetness from the can, and the hops take the fore. That said, by the late taste / finish, things have evened out.

The GF, whose olfactory senses she'll admit are lacking, mentioned the smell was more concentrated from the can. I did not expect that.

So, will the experience change as one doesn't chug a beer and it evolves in the glass / can?

Looks: well... duh! (actually, Sip looks quite good a bit into this experiment)
Smell: ok - it's harder to get the nose, but I actually like the focus of the can at this point, by .0001%
Taste: interesting - the peaks were a bit more pique-y in the can than the glass.

In analyzing this weird thought, I realized that the can delivered beer more into the center of the palate (i.e. tongue) than the glass did, and I feel that actually offered a different experience.

If I force a spread... I get a little more citrus from the can than the glass. But overall, they are fairly similar. But I am still kinda liking the can version.

So I brought the GF in, and she didn't have the same experience at all. So...

As I would argue with Heady - drink it how you like.
Though I would also argue, consider drinking it "outside the box" and see if the experience is different.

 

I would totally be up for that, given you'd have to have two beers to combine. Maybe a brief comment on why you combined them (if not obvious from a few lines of comparison - plug, plug the initial concept ).

All for more interest, and if we need to concentrate it, we can alter the title with a simple request, I think.

 

Okay, I'm gonna be a bit annoying and ask whether the combination was better than either individually, and maybe which carried the other, because I've had neither of the beers you put together (well, not the 2025 version of BCBS, at least).

 

Well, I think I will give this the "full Monty" experience here and a quick cross post in the cellar pull thread (I usually don't cross-post). Had these Dogfish Head World Wide Stouts pulled for a meetup with a friend and we never got to them. That was pre-Thanksgiving, so let's just go ahead and get it done, especially since one is 10-ish years old:


The newer version (since they stopped dating them, is I don't know how old... maybe a year or two, tops. It obviously has more carbonation, though since I've been feeling some age recently, I can commiserate with the 2016 WWS in not being so bubbly.

On the nose, the older guy has a licorice note to it - sort of like the allsorts candy sitting around grandma's house. There is also a chocolate liqueur spiked coffee vibe to it. The young pup actually has a genetic through line, but brings a more fiery char where the licorice sits in the older brew.

Effervescence follows what one would expect based on age, the 2016 is nearly flat. It has a light licorice-tinged flat cola flavor to it. Fairly rich, but also some oxidation at the edges - though less than expected. Then 2020s version has a vibrant acidic edge (in a relative sense). Going back and forth, the older has more of a raisin accent while the newer has an orange accent, though it evolves late into lime zest over fig.

The newer brew is bringing more complexity. I feel the feels of the 2016 is hurting it a bit, as the flavors are fine when I analyze them separately from the entire experience. The GF is feeling they are more similar than I am, but also liking the 2020s version - by a little bit.

 

Ok, just to suggest, I guess, given the beers...

That you don't need to have beers aged for seemingly obscene long times to post in this thread, I am going to compare to fresh beers. Literally one is weeks old and the other is (I'm trusting my life companion and GF) within two months old. Both hail from the Atlantic Northeast (ANE).

One is old school and likely not the same as older BAs will once recall. The other is from a new brewery I feel I'd want a good few hundred miles closer. So Harpoon IPA of Little Sip from Lawson's - and is it even a fair fight?


Ok - another shitty phone pic. I'm (really trying to be... not really...) over it. You get the visual of what I am drinking, regardless.

Actually, the shitty photo doesn't show that Little Sip is considerably lighter. After some typing, the relative foam atop the beers holds up - but to each's credit, there is some foam to make that judgement.

Little Sip's nose is melony sweet, with a light flower stalk bitterness that I hope shows up more in the taste. Harpoon is much more vegetal, relatively. Taking a second, I see more mineral notes and then I think I am getting the equivalent toasty nature that the look was trying to alert me to.

That said, the rawness (for lack of a better term) in the Harpoon has an old school vibe that takes a second to acclimate to, and even then, it's a bit strong. The fruity complexity of Líl Sip is much appreciated in contrast, but also have a softer nature to them - bringing into question whether the hops have any bitter bravado.

Generically, these beers seem to fit into the timeframe of their conception pretty well. I sip the Lawson's first, and it evolves over time. Harpoon seems to lay out four of its card for you to see right away.

Little Sip is soft, and the "hard water" mineral aspect versus "soft water" seems to take hold as a comparison. I am not going to claim I can detect water treatment differences, but there is a difference in feel that I equate to being an aspect of the largest volume ingredient in beer.

And before I finished that last paragraph, Harpoon has laid out its entire hand.

If I sip on the Harpoon alone, I am harkened back a bit to the east coast IPAs of old. Malty, with some minerality, and a countering more than defining orange citrus woody bitterness (not specifically piney, to try to explain). But it also seems a bit sterilized.

I so wanted the older school Harpoon to hold up better. It is a fine offering and does remind me of a time past. But really fresh Little Sip is pretty special and sits in a place where I feel good about where beer is going.

 

Yeah, I recall actually being a bit surprised how little difference there was. It was definitely a bit harder to get the aroma from the can, for perhaps obvious reasons, but what I got was ever so slightly more concentrated.