GE Monogram vs KitchenAid dishwashers: an incident-report comparison

What this GE Monogram vs KitchenAid comparison is based on#

Concentration is the axis this pair differs on, more than any individual component. KitchenAid's filings pile onto one part. GE Monogram's divide almost evenly between two. Everything else on the page follows from that.

The evidence is 360 CPSC SaferProducts incident reports naming a component on a KitchenAid [dishwasher](/blog/repair-or-replace-dishwasher), filed between 2011 and 2026, and 38 doing the same for GE Monogram, filed between 2011 and 2021. Shares below are always shares of one brand's own filings, never of machines sold or in service, which the database does not count.

One majority row against two near-equal ones#

The control board appears in 62% of the KitchenAid reports — 223 filings, the largest single share anywhere in this comparison set. Its second row, wiring or the power cord, is 15%. That is a record with one subject and a supporting cast.

GE Monogram has no majority row and no clear leader. The heating element takes 29% of its filings and the control board takes 26% — 11 reports and 10. The difference between first and second place there is one report, which is well inside the margin the table marks as noise. That is a record with two subjects of equal weight and nothing else at all: its remaining two rows are one filing each.

Where the two disagree, and how firmly#

The board separates them by 36 points and the heating element by 25 in the other direction. Both gaps are far wider than the roughly three points a single Monogram filing is worth, so both survive the thinness of that column — which is more than can be said for the third row.

Wiring or the power cord shows 15% for KitchenAid against 3% for Monogram, a 12-point gap. On the KitchenAid side that is 55 filings and firm; on the Monogram side it is one report, which cannot be distinguished from none. The gap is real in the sense that KitchenAid's record contains a substantial wiring component and Monogram's does not, and it is not evidence that wiring is rare on a Monogram — only that nothing was filed about it.

Two different reasons for a short tail#

Both columns end quickly and for opposite reasons. KitchenAid's tail is short because one row consumed most of the corpus: the heating element and the motor sit at 4% each, which is 16 and 13 filings out of 360. Monogram's tail is short because the corpus itself is short: 38 filings, of which 21 are already accounted for by the top two rows.

For repair planning that resolves into an asymmetry rather than a ranking. For a KitchenAid the filed record points overwhelmingly at the board, with wiring the plausible second. For a Monogram it points equally at heat and the board, and it is too thin to point anywhere else. How often either machine actually reaches those states is absent from this data, because filings are what was counted.

GE Monogram vs KitchenAid dishwashers: what the reports mention#

Both columns are shares of their own corpus, and the corpora differ in size. GE Monogram: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for GE Monogram dishwashers, 2011-2021, n=38. KitchenAid: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for KitchenAid dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=360. 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.

GE Monogram dishwashers: the reported component split#

GE Monogram dishwashers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for GE Monogram dishwashers, 2011-2021, n=38.

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

KitchenAid dishwashers: the reported component split#

KitchenAid dishwashers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for KitchenAid dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=360.

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.