Electrolux vs Maytag washers: an incident-report comparison

What this Electrolux vs Maytag comparison is based on#

Start with a coincidence that makes this pair unusually easy to read. The control board is named in 8 CPSC SaferProducts reports about Electrolux washers and in 8 about Maytag washers — the same number of documents, on both sides, for the same component. The Electrolux corpus holds 39 reports filed between 2014 and 2026; the Maytag corpus holds 104 filed between 2011 and 2026. So those identical 8 filings print as 21% in one column and 8% in the other.

That single row is the whole methodological argument of this page in one line. A percentage here is a statement about a denominator every bit as much as about a part, and the two denominators are not the same size.

What the identical row does and does not prove#

It does not prove the two brands' control boards behave alike. Eight reports is a small evidence base on either side, and the databases behind the two columns cover slightly different stretches of time. What it does show is how much of the visible gap between the columns comes from arithmetic rather than from the machines: the widest-looking difference on the board row, 13 percentage points, is generated by dividing the same numerator twice.

Keep that in mind for the other rows, where the counts are not identical but the pattern is similar. The wiring or power cord splits 18% against 4% — 7 Electrolux filings against 4 Maytag ones. The lint trap or vent splits 13% against 3% — 5 against 3. In both, the raw counts are close and the shares are far apart.

The Maytag corpus is unusually even#

Beyond the control board's 8%, the Maytag list barely varies. The heating element, the motor and the wiring or power cord are each at 4%, and the drain pump or hose and the lint trap or vent are each at 3%. Two more components, the thermostat or sensor and the water valve or line, sit at 1%. Nothing pulls away from anything else.

Eight components appear and none of them claims even a tenth of the corpus. Whatever these 104 reports are recording, they are not recording one dominant complaint — they describe a washer whose reported incidents scatter, with a mild lean toward the board.

The Electrolux corpus does the opposite#

Three components take almost all of it: the control board at 21%, the wiring or power cord at 18% and the lint trap or vent at 13%. Then it stops. The drive belt, the motor and the water valve or line are named once each, printing as 3%, and nothing else appears at all.

With 39 filings, that concentration is exactly what a handful of agreeing documents looks like, and it would take very few additional reports to reshape it. This is the part of the page to hold most loosely.

Where the two corpora meet#

Both name the control board more than anything else, and both put the motor in the low single digits — 3% for Electrolux against 4% for Maytag, a difference the table itself marks as within one-report noise. The heating element and the drain pump or hose appear on the Maytag side and not the Electrolux side, which with 39 documents against 104 is unremarkable.

The practical read is short. For either brand the reported incidents point first at the control board. Past that, a Maytag washer's record gives you no clear second suspect, and an [Electrolux washer](/blog/electrolux-washer-dryer-combo-error-codes)'s record points at the cord — on the strength of 7 filings.

Electrolux vs Maytag 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. Maytag: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag washers, 2011-2026, n=104. 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.

Maytag washers: the reported component split#

Maytag washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag washers, 2011-2026, n=104.

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.