Frigidaire vs Maytag refrigerators: an incident-report comparison

What this Frigidaire vs Maytag comparison is based on#

Two federal complaint records are counted here: 273 CPSC SaferProducts incident reports naming a component on a Frigidaire refrigerator between 2011 and 2026, and 76 doing the same for a Maytag refrigerator over the same years. Every share is a share of its own column's total, and neither total counts refrigerators sold or in use.

The same two parts, in a different balance#

Both records are led by the compressor and the ice maker. That is where the agreement ends, because the two columns distribute their weight completely differently.

Maytag's top two rows are effectively tied: the compressor at 25% and the ice maker at 24%, nineteen filings against eighteen. Together they are 37 of that record's 76 reports — very close to half of everything filed, split down the middle between two parts.

Frigidaire's record is not balanced at all. Its ice maker row takes 28% and its compressor row 10%, so first place is nearly three times second. The same two components dominate, but on the Frigidaire side one of them dominates the other.

What the shape difference is worth#

The ice maker gap between the two is 4 points — 28% against 24% — which is the smaller of the two headline differences and the one carried by the most filings on both sides. The compressor gap is 15 points, 10% against 25%, and it is the larger.

Both need a caveat about resolution. Maytag's 76 reports mean a single filing moves that column by more than a point, so its 25% and 24% rows are nineteen and eighteen submissions, and the one-point difference between them is one report. Reading Maytag's compressor as "ahead of" its ice maker would be reading a single filing as a result.

What the Maytag column can support is the coarser statement: two components, roughly equal, carrying about half the record between them. That is a real shape, and it differs from Frigidaire's.

Below the top two, the records are the same#

Everything after the first two rows is either a small difference or none at all. The control board is 3 points apart, 4% of the Maytag reports against 1% of the Frigidaire ones — three filings against three, in records that differ in size by nearly four times. The wiring or power cord runs 5% against 4% and the motor 2% against 3%, both marked as one-report noise.

The condenser and the defrost system are identical at 1% on both sides, one or two filings each. Those rows are the edge of what the classification can resolve, and neither column supports a claim there.

Frigidaire's column also runs deeper simply because it is larger: it lists a water valve or line at 4%, eleven filings, where Maytag's record has none, and it carries a heating element, an evaporator and a thermostat or sensor in its tail. Absence in a 76-report record is usually arithmetic, not engineering.

Why a tie at the top is the more interesting result#

Most pairings in this set have one record with a dominant component and one without. Here both records have a dominant pair, and the difference is whether that pair is stacked or level.

A level pair is harder to act on and, for that reason, more honest about what a complaint record contains. If two components arrive together at the top of a small record, the ordering between them carries no information, and the useful statement is the set rather than the ranking: on a Maytag, roughly half the filings named either the compressor or the ice maker, and the split between those two is a coin toss.

The Frigidaire record supports a stronger claim, because its lead is 18 points on a base four times larger. It says the ice maker is the leading subject of complaint and not merely a member of a leading pair. Both statements are about complaints rather than about hardware, but only one of them survives being handled roughly.

Reading the pair together#

The shortlist a technician takes from both columns is the same: compressor and ice maker first, wiring next, everything else rare. What differs is the order and the confidence. On a Frigidaire, the ice maker is the clear first stop. On a Maytag, the two lead components arrive together and the record is small enough that their order should not be trusted. Neither column is a failure rate, because neither has a denominator of units in service.

Frigidaire vs Maytag refrigerators: what the reports mention#

Both columns are shares of their own corpus, and the corpora differ in size. Frigidaire: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Frigidaire refrigerators, 2011-2026, n=273. Maytag: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag refrigerators, 2011-2026, n=76. 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.

Frigidaire refrigerators: the reported component split#

Frigidaire refrigerators — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Frigidaire refrigerators, 2011-2026, n=273.

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

Maytag refrigerators: the reported component split#

Maytag refrigerators — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag refrigerators, 2011-2026, n=76.

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.