GE Monogram vs Whirlpool dishwashers: an incident-report comparison

What this GE Monogram vs Whirlpool comparison is based on#

A four-row table can contain both a measurement and a rumour, and the difference between them is arithmetic. This page sets 38 CPSC SaferProducts filings for GE Monogram dishwashers, made between 2011 and 2021, against 137 for Whirlpool dishwashers, made between 2011 and 2026, and the first useful question is which of the four rows can carry any weight at all.

The threshold comes from the smaller column. At 38 filings, one report is worth roughly three points; at 137, one report is worth less than one. So a gap needs to be comfortably larger than three points before it means anything, and a Monogram row backed by a single filing cannot be compared with anything.

The two rows that clear it#

The control board differs by 23 points: 49% of the Whirlpool filings — 67 reports — against 26% of the Monogram ones, which is 10. The heating element differs by 20 points in the other direction: 29% of Monogram's filings, 11 reports, against 9% of Whirlpool's, which is 12.

Both of those are far above the noise floor and both have double-digit counts on each side. They are the comparison. Whirlpool's record is dominated by the board to a degree Monogram's is not, and Monogram's gives heat a share that Whirlpool's does not.

The two rows that do not#

Wiring or the power cord reads 8% for Whirlpool against 3% for Monogram — five points, which sounds like a difference and is not one. The Monogram side of that row is a single filing, so its true position is anywhere between absent and modest, and a five-point gap sits inside that uncertainty. The motor row is worse: 4% against 3%, which is six Whirlpool filings against one Monogram filing, and the table marks it as noise for exactly that reason.

Presenting those two rows as findings would be the easiest mistake this table invites. They are listed so the shape of each column is visible, not so they can be read across.

What the readable rows support#

Whirlpool's filings concentrate: nearly half of them name the control board, and its second row is less than a fifth of the size of its first. Monogram's do not concentrate — its two leading rows, at 29% and 26%, are within one filing of each other, and nothing else in that column has more than one report.

That gives a repair-planning prior and nothing stronger. A Whirlpool [dishwasher](/blog/repair-or-replace-dishwasher) that will not start or has lost its panel lands in the region that dominates its record; a Monogram is as likely to have generated a heat complaint as a board complaint, on the evidence available. Neither statement carries a frequency, because the denominators here are filings and the machines that never produced one are counted nowhere.

GE Monogram vs Whirlpool 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. Whirlpool: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Whirlpool dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=137. 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.

Whirlpool dishwashers: the reported component split#

Whirlpool dishwashers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Whirlpool dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=137.

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.