Electrolux vs Kenmore washers: an incident-report comparison

What this Electrolux vs Kenmore comparison is based on#

This page sets the smallest washer corpus in the CPSC SaferProducts collection against one of the largest. 39 incident reports name an [Electrolux washer](/blog/electrolux-washer-dryer-combo-error-codes), filed between 2014 and 2026. 208 name a Kenmore washer, filed between 2011 and 2026. Every share below is a share of one of those two report sets and of nothing else — the database records what was submitted, and no denominator of machines sold or still running exists to divide it by.

A five-to-one difference in corpus size is not a background detail. It changes what each column is capable of saying, and the sensible way to read the table is to treat the two sides as instruments of different precision pointed at the same appliance.

The two columns have different resolutions#

One Kenmore report is worth about half a percentage point. One Electrolux report is worth about two and a half. Put another way: the Electrolux column can only move in coarse jumps, so every entry in it is either a large-looking share or absent, and there is no such thing as a small share on that side.

You can see the consequence directly. The Electrolux list has exactly two values below its top three — 3%, repeated for the drive belt, the motor and the water valve or line, each of which is a single report. The Kenmore list, with room to be finer, runs 9%, 7%, 4%, 4%, 2%, 1%, 1%, 1% and then a row that rounds to 0%. Nothing about a washer changes between those two shapes; the number of documents does.

The row that rounds to zero is not empty#

That last Kenmore entry deserves a sentence of its own, because a table cell reading 0% is easy to misread as "never happened". The drain pump or hose is named in one of the 208 Kenmore reports. The share rounds down; the report exists. On the Electrolux side the same single-report event would have printed as 3% — a number that looks fifty times more serious and describes exactly the same quantity of evidence.

This is the clearest illustration on the page of why the tables here always carry the raw counts beside the percentages. A share is a statement about a denominator as much as about a component, and two shares computed over 39 and 208 documents are not interchangeable units.

What survives the size difference#

Three gaps in the side-by-side table are wide enough to be worth naming. The wiring or power cord is in 18% of the Electrolux reports and 4% of the Kenmore ones, a 14-point spread standing on 7 filings against 9 — again, nearly the same number of documents, pulled apart by the denominators. The control board splits 21% against 9%, 12 points, 8 filings against 18. The lint trap or vent splits 13% against 7%, 6 points, 5 against 14.

In all three the Electrolux share is the higher one and the Electrolux count is the lower one. That pattern is what a small corpus does to a comparison, and it is the reason this page does not read the wide gaps as a finding about the brands.

Where the two corpora genuinely agree#

Both lists are led by the control board, and both put the lint trap or vent near the top — second on the Kenmore side at 7%, third on the Electrolux side at 13%. The motor lands in the same narrow band on both, 4% for Kenmore against 3% for Electrolux, a difference the table itself marks as within one-report noise.

So the agreement between these two brands is broader than the table's difference column suggests. A washer of either badge, when it turns up in this database, is most often turning up over a control board, a lint path or a cord — and that shortlist is the honest output of this comparison.

Electrolux vs Kenmore washers: what the reports mention#

Both columns are shares of their own corpus, and the corpora differ in size. Electrolux: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Electrolux washers, 2014-2026, n=39. Kenmore: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Kenmore washers, 2011-2026, n=208. A difference no larger than one report on either side is marked "within one-report noise".

About the corpus: these are CPSC SaferProducts reports — incidents someone chose to report, not units sold — so the shares on this page are shares of the reports and never a failure rate. The corpus is weighted toward safety events: 12,007 of its 20,581 records (58%) are fire, smoke, burn or melt reports, which over-represents the components that burn and under-represents the ones that merely stop working.

Electrolux washers: the reported component split#

Electrolux washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Electrolux washers, 2014-2026, n=39.

Shares of reports, not failure rates — see the corpus note above.

Kenmore washers: the reported component split#

Kenmore washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Kenmore washers, 2011-2026, n=208.

Shares of reports, not failure rates — see the corpus note above.

How to use these numbers#

What this comparison can settle: which components the reported incidents of each brand actually concentrate on, for this appliance. What it cannot settle: which brand fails more often. That would need units sold, and no public source states it. Use the component split to plan for the repair each brand is most reported for, not to rank the two.