Comparison
Uruguayan Tannat vs Washington Cabernet Sauvignon
How Uruguayan Tannat and Washington Cabernet Sauvignon differ, dimension by dimension.
The short answer
The main differences: Washington Cabernet Sauvignon has more fruit intensity; Uruguayan Tannat has more savoury character; Washington Cabernet Sauvignon has more perceived freshness.
Choose
Washington Cabernet Sauvignon
Choose Washington Cabernet Sauvignon if you want something fruitier, fresher.
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.
Fruit intensity
Clear differenceHow loudly the fruit flavours speak, independent of whether they are ripe or tart.
Washington Cabernet Sauvignon is fruitier: high against medium-plus.
Savoury character
Clear differenceNon-fruit, umami-adjacent character: meat, leather, olive, soy, broth, cured notes. Often increases with age.
Uruguayan Tannat is more savoury: medium-plus against medium.
Perceived freshness
Clear differenceThe 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.
Washington Cabernet Sauvignon is fresher: medium-plus against medium.
Where they are much the same
Just as useful: knowing which parts of the choice do not matter.
- Sweetness: Similar — both low.
- Acidity: Similar — both medium-plus.
- Tannin: Similar — both medium-plus.
- Alcohol: Similar — both medium-plus.
- Body: Similar — both high.
Full side by side
| Dimension | Uruguayan Tannat | Washington Cabernet Sauvignon |
|---|---|---|
| Fruit intensity | typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to high (4/5) | typically high, ranging from medium-plus to high (5/5) |
| Savoury character | typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5) | typically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium-plus (3/5) |
| Perceived freshness | typically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium-plus (3/5) | typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5) |
| Sweetness | low (1/5) | low (1/5) |
| Acidity | typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5) | typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5) |
| Tannin | typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to high (4/5) | typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to high (4/5) |
| Alcohol | typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5) | typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to high (4/5) |
| Body | typically high, ranging from medium-plus to high (5/5) | typically high, ranging from medium-plus to high (5/5) |
| Aromatic intensity | medium (3/5) | medium (3/5) |
| Oak influence | typically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium-plus (3/5) | typically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium-plus (3/5) |
| Floral character | low (1/5) | low (1/5) |
| Herbal / green character | low (1/5) | low (1/5) |
| Spice | typically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium (3/5) | typically medium, ranging from low-medium to medium-plus (3/5) |
| Earthy character | low (1/5) | low (1/5) |
| Carbonation | low (1/5) | low (1/5) |
| Texture | typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to medium-plus (4/5) | typically medium-plus, ranging from medium to high (4/5) |
| Serve at | 16–18°C | 16–18°C |
| Typical flavours | blackberry, plum, liquorice, cocoa, dried herb | blackcurrant, black cherry, cocoa, graphite, sage |
Values are typical points within each wine’s range. Both wines vary — see the individual pages for how much.