Skip to content
WineHQ
Search

Comparison

Barossa Shiraz vs Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon

How Barossa Shiraz and Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon differ, dimension by dimension.

The short answer

Barossa Shiraz and Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon are both made from Shiraz, so the difference is about place and winemaking rather than the grape. The main differences: Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon has more herbal / green character; Barossa Shiraz has more spice; Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon has more perceived freshness.

These are the same grape

The difference here is not botanical. It comes from where the vines grow, how the wine is made and what the name has come to signal commercially — which is exactly why the two taste different in practice.

Choose

Barossa Shiraz

Choose Barossa Shiraz if you want something spicier, stronger and warmer, fuller and richer.

Choose

Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon

Choose Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon if you want something more herbal and green, fresher, fresher and more acidic.

Where they genuinely differ

Only differences large enough to notice in the glass are listed here. A gap of half a point on a five-point scale is noise, and WineHQ does not dress it up as a finding.

Herbal / green character

Clear difference

Herbs, grass, blackcurrant leaf, capsicum and other green notes, largely driven by methoxypyrazines and picking decisions.

Barossa Shirazlow (1/5)
Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignontypically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium-plus (3/5)

Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon is more herbal and green: medium against low.

Spice

Clear difference

Pepper, clove, cinnamon and related spice notes, whether from the grape (as with rotundone in Syrah) or from oak.

Barossa Shiraztypically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium-plus (3/5)
Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignonlow (1/5)

Barossa Shiraz is spicier: medium against low.

Perceived freshness

Clear difference

The overall impression of liveliness — a composite of acidity, alcohol balance, fruit character and the absence of tiredness. Distinct from raw acidity: a wine can be high in acid yet taste heavy.

Barossa Shiraztypically low-medium, ranging from low to medium (2/5)
Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignontypically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5)

Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon is fresher: medium-plus against low-medium.

Acidity

Clear difference

Total perceived acidity. Rises in cooler climates and with earlier picking; falls with heat and ripeness.

Barossa Shiraztypically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium (3/5)
Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignontypically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5)

Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon is fresher and more acidic: medium-plus against medium.

Alcohol

Clear difference

Perceived alcoholic strength, which tracks actual ABV but is modified by sweetness, acidity and body.

Barossa Shiraztypically high, ranging from medium-plus to high (5/5)
Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignontypically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5)

Barossa Shiraz is stronger and warmer: high against medium-plus.

Body

Clear difference

The overall weight and viscosity of the wine in the mouth — a composite of alcohol, sugar, extract and glycerol.

Barossa Shiraztypically high, ranging from medium-plus to high (5/5)
Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignontypically medium-plus, ranging from medium to high (4/5)

Barossa Shiraz is fuller and richer: high against medium-plus.

Where they are much the same

Just as useful: knowing which parts of the choice do not matter.

  • Sweetness: Similar — both low.
  • Tannin: Similar — both medium-plus.
  • Aromatic intensity: Similar — both medium.
  • Savoury character: Similar — both medium.
  • Floral character: Similar — both low.

Full side by side

DimensionBarossa ShirazCoonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon
Herbal / green characterlow (1/5)typically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium-plus (3/5)
Spicetypically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium-plus (3/5)low (1/5)
Perceived freshnesstypically low-medium, ranging from low to medium (2/5)typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5)
Aciditytypically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium (3/5)typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5)
Alcoholtypically high, ranging from medium-plus to high (5/5)typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5)
Bodytypically high, ranging from medium-plus to high (5/5)typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to high (4/5)
Fruit intensitytypically high, ranging from medium-plus to high (5/5)typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to high (4/5)
Oak influencetypically medium-plus, ranging from medium to high (4/5)typically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium-plus (3/5)
Texturetypically high, ranging from medium-plus to high (5/5)typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5)
Sweetnesslow (1/5)low (1/5)
Tannintypically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5)typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to high (4/5)
Aromatic intensitymedium (3/5)medium (3/5)
Savoury charactertypically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium (3/5)typically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium-plus (3/5)
Floral characterlow (1/5)low (1/5)
Earthy characterlow (1/5)low (1/5)
Carbonationlow (1/5)low (1/5)
Serve at16–18°C16–18°C
Typical flavoursblackberry, plum, dark chocolate, liquorice, vanillacassis, mint, eucalyptus, blackcurrant leaf, cedar

Values are typical points within each wine’s range. Both wines vary — see the individual pages for how much.

Read more