GE Monogram vs LG dishwashers: an incident-report comparison

What this GE Monogram vs LG comparison is based on#

Neither of these records is large. GE Monogram accounts for 38 CPSC SaferProducts incident reports, filed between 2011 and 2021; LG accounts for 47, filed between 2011 and 2026. Nearly every other comparison in this set has at least one deep column to anchor it. This one has none, and the sensible thing is to say so before quoting a single percentage.

The practical consequence is a coarse resolution. One filing is worth roughly three points on the Monogram side and about two on the LG side. Any row backed by a single report is therefore a number with a wide margin around it, and this page treats such rows as presence rather than as measurement.

What survives at that resolution#

Five rows across the two columns have more than one filing behind them, and they are the whole of what can be compared. On the Monogram side: the heating element at 29%, which is 11 reports, and the control board at 26%, which is 10. On the LG side: the control board at 30%, which is 14 reports, wiring or the power cord at 28%, which is 13, and the motor at 15%, which is 7.

Set against each other those produce one clear agreement and two clear divergences. The control board is the agreement — 26% against 30%, four points apart, and near the top of both columns. The divergences are the heating element, 29% against 2%, and wiring or the power cord, 3% against 28%.

How much weight two double-digit gaps can carry#

A 27-point gap on the heating element sounds decisive, and in one direction it is: eleven Monogram filings name it against one LG filing. That is a real difference in what the two sets of reports are about.

What it is not is a difference in failure frequency. Eleven reports out of 38 and one out of 47 are both small absolute numbers, and the machines that produced no report at all — which on any plausible fleet size is nearly all of them — are absent from both columns. The same caution applies to the wiring row in the opposite direction: thirteen LG filings against one Monogram filing is a real difference in the records, and no more than that.

The motor row, and the limits worth restating#

The motor is the one component LG's record contains in quantity and Monogram's does not: 15% against 3%, seven filings against one. It is also the row where the noise floor bites hardest, since a single additional Monogram report would move that column by three points on its own.

Two further limits belong on a page this thin. The Monogram window closes in 2021, five years before LG's, so the two are not observing the same span. And neither column has a denominator of machines, which means no share here converts into a rate no matter how the rows are combined. What the page supports is a description of two small records: heat and the board for Monogram, the board and wiring with a real motor presence for LG.

GE Monogram vs LG 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. LG: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for LG dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=47. 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.

LG dishwashers: the reported component split#

LG dishwashers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for LG dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=47.

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.