beersmith vs brewersfriend

[dlampen45]

I wrote up an ipa recipe i want to try soon on brewers friend a week or so ago and it came out to 74 Ibu. Just downloaded beersmith mobile 2.0 and plugged in the same recipe and came to 56 Ibu. Everything else is identical and i made sure those are both tinseth. Any ideas?

 

[phug]

Are they both assuming the same aa% on the hops?

 

[McKnuckle]

Too many variables... AA% on hops as phug stated. Also, boil volume and boil gravity have a significant effect on utilization.

I have been using Brewer's Friend for several months (about 20 batches). Being the analytical type, I built my own spreadsheet to validate its calculations and tailor things to my needs. The module for IBU/Tinseth that I built from online references matches BF within 1 IBU. So they are doing it right.

 

[Carusoat]

I've been using Brewer's Friend for a couple years and most of my beers can hit the numbers right on. I tried to switch one recipe to beersmith and it was no where near. So I tend to favor Brewer's Friend and realize there is some difference somewhere between the two.

 

[McKnuckle]

One issue I have with BeerSmith is that there are just too many personal variables to populate, and it's very easy to miss one. I tried it for a while (side by side with BF) and found myself constantly in a situation of "Now what value could possibly be making this not look right?" I usually found it, but to me brewing software needs to enable the task and not dominate it. Too many numerical fields constantly in front of you; too many values pre-populated with amounts not relevant to my setup; too many hidden variables to search for and correct.

BF is not perfect either, but I seem to prefer its UI and have learned how to spec a recipe to match my version of reality (most of the time!).

 

[Calichusetts]

If you have beersmith dialed in, I find it much more accurate. Brewersfriend is consistently 2 points low on OG for me and 5-7 points low when it comes to FG. Just my IMO. IBUs are also off but not as much as yours. Just like 5 or 6.

 

[McKnuckle]

IBUs are also off but not as much as yours. Just like 5 or 6.

How do you know? One can measure gravity, but unless you have a lab I'm wondering how you measure IBU empirically in order to state the above.

 

[LLBeanJ]

If you have beersmith dialed in, I find it much more accurate.

+1

Personally, I like all the variables that BS has, as it allows me to really fine tune my process. Besides the fact that I despise browser-based software, one of the biggest issues I have with BF is that it does not appear to adjust expected FG with changes to mash temp. Also, unlike BS, BF doesn't provide fields to record actual results for volumes and gravities. I guess that's what the Notes field is for. Maybe it does do this stuff, but I've not figured out how, though I've been using BS happily for years, so, admittedly, I am not at all motivated to make BF work for my brewing. IMO, BF leaves a lot to be desired, whereas BS is pretty complete and easy to use once you've spent some time with it.

 

[McKnuckle]

Brewer's Friend does indeed provide a place to record actual results.

The Brew Session is where you record your actual volumes and gravities on brew day. That's one of the nice things (to me) about BF vs. BS. In BS your recipe is basically a one shot deal; you are expected to record the actual brew results in the same space as the recipe, and annoyingly, it defaults those values to irrelevant amounts, which confuses the heck out of me.

In BF, the recipe stands alone and you can brew it multiple times, recording actuals in each individual session. Each session also contains the efficiency stats for that individual brew attempt. And the Brew Log lets you put in dedicated entries for gravity samples along the way (partial attenuation), packaging, and tasting notes along with any other notation you would like to record.

 

[LLBeanJ]

Brewer's Friend does indeed provide a place to record actual results.

The Brew Session is where you record your actual volumes and gravities on brew day. That's one of the nice things (to me) about BF vs. BS. In BS your recipe is basically a one shot deal; you are expected to record the actual brew results in the same space as the recipe, and annoyingly, it defaults those values to irrelevant amounts, which confuses the heck out of me.

In BF, the recipe stands alone and you can brew it multiple times, recording actuals in each individual session. Each session also contains the efficiency stats for that individual brew attempt. And the Brew Log lets you put in dedicated entries for gravity samples along the way (partial attenuation), packaging, and tasting notes.

I stand corrected.

I guess I was expecting it to be in the recipe itself, since that's what I'm used to with BS, where I consider every recipe to be an individual brew session.

 

[McKnuckle]

...I consider every recipe to be an individual brew session.

Ironically, so do I. So it took some getting used to, and in fact, I usually revise my recipe after brewing it to match actual results. Go figure.

No software is perfect, and at the end of the day it's a tool - something (as I said earlier) that enables you to do something else, not an end in itself. So we often just prefer what we know and we've become familiar with.

I would like to give BS another chance. I just need the patience to really sit there and set up a foolproof way to create new recipes and not have to enter so much stuff every single time. Maybe I just don't know how.

 

[LLBeanJ]

No software is perfect, and at the end of the day it's a tool - something (as I said earlier) that enables you to do something else, not an end in itself. So we often just prefer what we know and we've become familiar with.

Can't disagree with you there. Gotta go with whatever works best for you.

I would like to give BS another chance. I just need the patience to really sit there and set up a foolproof way to create new recipes and not have to enter so much stuff every single time. Maybe I just don't know how.

I never start with a brand new blank recipe. I always create a new recipe as a duplicate of an existing one. That way, all my settings are pretty much already there, just need to modify ingredients, update volumes and gravities.

 

[Falcon3]

I much prefer BF, but the yearly dues turned me off so I bought BeerSmith. I agree with many of the sentiments above- there's far too much detail for most of us I belief BF had the perfect amount of customizability for the vast majority of home brewers

Things in BeerSmith are just too complicated, like if I want to put my ferm temp at 68, raising to 72 after 4 days, I have to create a new ferm "profile" instead of just typing the numbers. BeerSmith is full of things like that that could be very simple but has been made way too complex.

 

[LLBeanJ]

Things in BeerSmith are just too complicated, like if I want to put my ferm temp at 68, raising to 72 after 4 days, I have to create a new ferm "profile" instead of just typing the numbers.

Not sure what you mean by this. I've been using BS for 3 years and I don't believe I have ever created a new ferm profile. I always use one of the stock BS profiles and modify the values for days & temps inside the recipe.

 

[McKnuckle]

I get what he's saying. You have to create a fermentation PROFILE in the first place. And I see how, for some people, that formalizes the process and makes everything documented in a rigorous way, which they like.

For others, we prefer to improvise a bit more, just watch the beer and make changes as we observe what it's doing (how fast it attenuates, if we decide to add ingredients, etc.). I don't want to be constantly tweaking a "profile" that I'll never use again. I just want to record ad hoc notes on what I did. I really like the BF Brew Log for that purpose. It provides enough structure - you have a date, gravity (with temp correction), and volume - but you can put in any random comments you want. And you can record as many entries as you like. It's not a PROFILE; it's a running history of what actually happened. It just works better for me.

Now granted, one can just ignore the ferm profile in BS. But there's this weird OCD thing that happens to some of us when a feature is supposed to be used but is ignored. We feel compelled to use it even if we don't want to! People are strange.

 

[Mirilis]

I have used both software's and I think they are both fine. I do notice that BF gives me a final gravity that's usually a little higher than what I get but, that is basically because of the attenuation of the yeast and I don't really fault the software that much. All my other numbers are dead on.

I find myself using BF 99% of the time though because I like its UI better. I also like that its web based and not app based. I can go anywhere there is internet (work specifically) and develop recipes for the weekend. I like the QR code link and i include that in my label designs so I can just scan a beer and load the recipe.

Like many others though as stated above.. its just a tool .. I am the master of my process and I take responsibility for how my stuff comes out. I wont rely on a program to do that for me. I have to improve my skill at using the tools or predicting outcomes so that I can master my process from grain to empty keg. .. just my 2c

BF could be improved though in its ability to print concise logs. It is under development though.. hopefully soon! I like to log everything so I can review it later when I analyze my beers flavor profile.

 

[Calichusetts]

How do you know? One can measure gravity, but unless you have a lab I'm wondering how you measure IBU empirically in order to state the above.

I just mean that there is a literal difference between the IBUs the two sites produce. I really could care less if its 55 or 58, no perceivable difference to me.

+1

Personally, I like all the variables that BS has, as it allows me to really fine tune my process. Besides the fact that I despise browser-based software, one of the biggest issues I have with BF is that it does not appear to adjust expected FG with changes to mash temp.

THIS. Very strange that mash temp does not alter gravities. They will surely address this in future versions though. LOVE BF mash pH calculator though, and their ABV calculator. Basically...I use both programs

 

[btbnl]

I have used both software's and I think they are both fine. I do notice that BF gives me a final gravity that's usually a little higher than what I get but, that is basically because of the attenuation of the yeast and I don't really fault the software that much. All my other numbers are dead on.

You know you can set the attenuation by hand?

 

[LLBeanJ]

LOVE BF mash pH calculator though....

I, too, use the BF mash pH calculator. I use BS for everything else.

 

[Mirilis]

You know you can set the attenuation by hand?

yeah, but I don't mess with it.. i know my yeast and where it should finish when I use it.

 

[dlampen45]

Thanks for all the replies, i guess i didn't look at what each site figured for AA just thought it should be closer than 20 ibu or whatever the difference was. I was looking for an app to use on my phone and just spent the $7 on the mobile without shelling out the $22 for the pc version. So maybe I'll just stick with one program and roll with it, I'm not as advanced as most of you guys yet and dont think i need (or want or understand) some of the settings on Beersmith

 

[BrewersFriend]

Hi guys, this is Josh from Brewer's Friend. We've noticed your feedback on the final gravity calculations and it's been a long standing feature request on Brewer's Friend too. I wanted to let you know that we were able to develop some new calculations this week, including adjusting final gravity based on mash temperature in our recipe builder.

Please give it a try and let us know what you think:
http://www.brewersfriend.com/homebrew/recipe/calculator/

Currently this is only for the desktop version of the calculator, but we'll be rolling out these changes to our mobile apps in the next few weeks.

 

[vwmasstransit]

I much prefer BF, but the yearly dues turned me off so I bought BeerSmith.

I use the iPhone version of BF, it's just as good, and I can input recipes while at work. Lol. I only use the online version for the advance calculators like stepped mashed and what not. Have not used BS, my buddy does and says he like it. We started at the same time and used different software for comparisons and I have stuck with BF cause it suits my needs/style just fine.

The main issue I've had is the color approximation is off. I recently made an Irish Red and thought the color was a going to be a little to light. So I added 2oz of chocolate malt I had on hand. Well, it came out way dark, still red just dark. I think the ever so slight chocolate flavor was a win.

 

[jaydlaw]

personally i like brewers friend. It is more user friendly imo. i find that if i am off on the OG, than chances are i am not as efficient as originally projected.

 

[LLBeanJ]

I'm an IT guy and I prefer BS hands down. I've been using it for 3+ years now and to me, it's easy to use and manage once you have everything dialed in, which takes maybe 3-5 brewing sessions. I'm really surprised to hear so many of you don't like it. Brewer's Friend, on the other hand, seams weak and under powered. It's easy to use, but that's really the problem: It is so simple that it lacks functionality and I actually find it much more clunky to use than BS. But that's how I feel about most browser-based applications, so it stands to reason why I don't care for it. Different strokes, I guess.

 

[Calichusetts]

I use both. BF for mash pH and profile and BS for recipe design and more accurate OG and FG.

 

[TeamAshBrewing]

I bought Beersmith and currently only use it for saving my recipes. Beersmith has so many variables. I barely have enough time to brew beer, much less enter profiles and learn the software. When I do brew, I try to document everything, so that I can just plug the info into Beersmith when I do have time.
I use the online calculators in Brewers Friend, and usually design recipes there as well.

 

[brewfun]

The main issue I've had is the color approximation is off. I recently made an Irish Red and thought the color was a going to be a little to light. So I added 2oz of chocolate malt I had on hand. Well, it came out way dark, still red just dark. I think the ever so slight chocolate flavor was a win.

How did you measure the color? SRM is actually tough for any software because it only calculates one wavelength of light. Even then, you're supposed to measure it through 1 cm of depth. I don't see a lot of brewers following that protocol, though.

Anytime you're measuring color through the full width of a glass, it'll always be deeper and richer than it seem on paper. I'm glad the chocolate malt flavor worked out, though!

 

[CBelli]

I have used BS for years and like it... my only "beef" is that the Versioning/Brew Day aspect is very clunky for me.

 

[murphyslaw]

I use BS. Its kind of clunky and i agree with cbelli that the versioning isnt great, but it has everything i need, except a ph calc, and the ability to customize to your systems performance is great. Ive been intrigued by BF, but the annual fee turned me off. Although i now pay for BS cloud to sync my recipes to my phone, if i ever wanted to stop, id still have the software. i also trust BS to stick around and appreciate that everything is saved locally just in case.