Frigidaire vs Samsung washers: an incident-report comparison

What this Frigidaire vs Samsung comparison is based on#

The two report sets on this page differ in size by more than a factor of eleven. 540 CPSC SaferProducts incident reports name a [Samsung washer](/blog/samsung-washer-dryer-combo-error-codes), filed between 2011 and 2026. 46 name a Frigidaire washer, filed between 2011 and 2023. Both are stacks of complaints somebody sat down and submitted, and neither has a denominator: the CPSC does not publish how many washers of either brand were sold or are still running.

That asymmetry does something specific to the table. The Samsung column can measure a component named eight times; the Frigidaire column cannot distinguish between a component named once and one named twice without moving two full percentage points.

Samsung's list is led by a part Frigidaire never names#

Across this class the control board is almost always the most-reported component. The Samsung corpus is the exception: its leading entry is the drain pump or hose at 4%, on 22 reports, with the control board level at 4% on 20. Water handling, not electronics, is what the largest washer corpus in this database mostly describes.

The drain pump or hose does not appear in the Frigidaire list at all. With 46 documents that silence is weak evidence — a single filing would have put the component on the board at 2% — but the positive observation stands on its own: 22 Samsung reports name it, which is nearly half the size of the entire Frigidaire corpus.

A tall column and a wide one#

Frigidaire's leader is the control board at 9%, more than twice the height of anything in the Samsung column, and it rests on 4 filings. Samsung's control board share is 4% and rests on 20. Every row on this page repeats that arrangement in some form: the taller share belongs to the smaller corpus and the heavier evidence belongs to the larger one.

The Samsung column below its leaders is flat and long — the wiring or power cord, the lint trap or vent and the motor at 2% each, then the heating element, the igniter and the water valve or line at 1%, and a drum bearing that rounds to 0% on a single report. Nine components, none of them dominant. The Frigidaire column has seven, four of which are one filing apiece.

The widest gaps are the thinnest#

The control board separates the two by 5 percentage points and the heating element by 3. Look underneath the second of those and it is 2 Frigidaire filings against 8 Samsung ones — more documents on the side with the smaller share. The lint trap or vent and the motor each differ by 2 points, and the table marks both as noise; the wiring or power cord shows no measured difference at all, at 2% in both columns.

So there is no row on this page where the shares and the raw counts agree about direction. That is the signature of a comparison driven by denominators, and it is why the difference column here should be read as a description of corpus size rather than of washers.

The window that stops early#

The Frigidaire reports end in 2023; the Samsung reports continue to 2026. In a corpus of 540 that final stretch is not a rounding detail — it is a meaningful share of the filings on one side of the table and none of the filings on the other. Any question about recent models runs into that gap immediately.

What each column supports#

Samsung's record supports a genuine statement: its reported washer incidents divide evenly, led jointly by the drain pump or hose and the control board at 4% each, with nothing else above 2%. That is a wide, flat profile built on 540 documents, and it argues for diagnosing broadly rather than betting on a single part.

Frigidaire's record supports a starting point and little more. The control board is named 4 times, three other components twice each, and three once each. It is a shortlist assembled from 46 pieces of paper, and it says nothing at all about how often a Frigidaire washer needs work.

Frigidaire vs Samsung 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. Samsung: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Samsung washers, 2011-2026, n=540. 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.

Samsung washers: the reported component split#

Samsung washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Samsung washers, 2011-2026, n=540.

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.