Frigidaire vs Maytag washers: an incident-report comparison

What this Frigidaire vs Maytag comparison is based on#

This is the most level pairing in the washer set. Not one row in the difference column below escapes the table's one-report noise marking, and two rows show no measured difference at all. The sources are CPSC SaferProducts incident reports — 46 naming a Frigidaire washer, filed between 2011 and 2023, and 104 naming a Maytag washer, filed between 2011 and 2026.

Both piles are complaints somebody submitted. Neither is a count of washers in service, and the CPSC publishes no sales figure to divide by, so nothing on this page becomes a rate no matter how it is read.

A comparison that comes back level#

The control board leads both lists and the two shares are almost the same: 9% of the Frigidaire reports and 8% of the Maytag ones. The heating element is at 4% on both sides. The motor is at 4% on both sides. The lint trap or vent splits 4% against 3%, the thermostat or sensor 2% against 1%, the water valve or line 2% against 1%, and the wiring or power cord 2% against 4%.

That is the entire table. The largest number anywhere in the difference column is 2 percentage points, and the table marks every row as noise because each of those gaps could be produced by moving one filing.

The denominators nearly cancel#

The control board row is the cleanest illustration. Maytag's 8% rests on 8 reports, exactly twice Frigidaire's 4, and the Maytag corpus is a little over twice the size of the Frigidaire one. Double the numerator, double the denominator, and the shares land a point apart.

Something similar happens further down. The heating element is 2 Frigidaire filings and 4 Maytag ones; the motor is 2 and 4. In both rows the counts differ by a factor of two and the shares come out identical. When that happens repeatedly across a table, the honest description is that the two records are proportioned alike, not that one brand has twice the trouble of the other.

What a null result is worth#

A page that fails to separate its two subjects still rules something out. It rules out the shortcut a shopper is usually sold — that one of these brands concentrates its reported problems somewhere the other does not — and it converts two lists into one shared shortlist.

It also sets an expectation for reading the rest of this class. When a genuine gap appears elsewhere in the set, it is worth asking whether it looks like these rows, where the counts move with the denominators, or whether the raw filings point the same way as the shares. Here they do not point anywhere: every row is a tie or a one-report wobble.

The two small asymmetries#

Maytag names one component Frigidaire does not: the drain pump or hose, at 3% on 3 reports. Frigidaire's list stops at seven components and Maytag's runs to eight, a difference that 104 documents against 46 comfortably explains on its own.

The wiring or power cord is the only row where Maytag holds the higher share, at 4% against 2% — 4 filings against 1. It is a two-point gap generated by three documents, which is precisely the size of difference the table refuses to call a difference.

Reading this in practice#

For a washer of either brand that shows up in this database, the control board is the most-named component, at 9% or 8% depending on which column you are in. After that, both records go flat: on the Frigidaire side three components tie at 4%, on the Maytag side three tie at 4% and two more at 3%.

The one asymmetry worth remembering is chronological, not mechanical. The Frigidaire reports stop in 2023 while the Maytag reports continue to 2026, so the most recent stretch of the comparison is represented on one side only.

Frigidaire vs Maytag washers: 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 washers, 2011-2023, n=46. 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.

Frigidaire washers: the reported component split#

Frigidaire washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Frigidaire washers, 2011-2023, n=46.

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.