GE vs Maytag washers: an incident-report comparison

What this GE vs Maytag comparison is based on#

This is one of the few pages in the class where each brand leads something. The two records — 181 CPSC SaferProducts incident reports naming a GE washer and 104 naming a Maytag washer, both filed between 2011 and 2026 — put GE ahead on three components and Maytag ahead on two, with two more showing no measured difference at all.

The usual limits hold. A report is a submission, filed by an owner, a retailer, an agency or a manufacturer, and nobody submits one about a washer that is working. The CPSC publishes no count of machines sold or in service, so the shares here can never become failure rates.

What GE's column leads#

The control board is named in 13% of the GE reports against 8% of the Maytag ones — 23 filings against 8, a 5-point gap and the widest on the page. The motor follows at 7% against 4%, 13 filings against 4. The lint trap or vent runs 6% against 3%, 10 filings against 3.

All three survive being read in documents as well as in percentages, which is not something every row in this class manages. GE's corpus is the larger of the two, so a higher share there also means substantially more paperwork behind it.

What Maytag's column leads#

Two rows lean the other way, and they are the more interesting half of the page precisely because the smaller corpus has to work harder to hold a lead. The drain pump or hose is at 3% of the Maytag reports against 1% of the GE ones — 3 filings against 1. The heating element is at 4% against 2%, 4 filings against 3.

Neither is a large finding. The drain pump row is four documents in total and the heating element row is seven. But both point the same way in shares and in counts, and together they describe a record with a mild water-and-heat emphasis that GE's does not share.

Two rows that separate nothing#

The wiring or power cord is at 4% in both columns — 8 GE filings against 4 Maytag ones. The water valve or line is at 1% in both, 2 filings against 1. The table marks both as showing no measured difference.

The wiring row is the one worth noticing, because it has a reasonable amount of paper behind it on both sides. Twelve documents between the two columns, allocating the same fraction of each record, is about as close to a genuine tie as a comparison of this size produces.

Two lists of different length#

GE names ten components; Maytag names eight. GE's extras are a drive belt at 2%, an igniter at 1% and a condenser at 1% — four, two and one filings respectively. Maytag's list includes a thermostat or sensor at 1%, which GE's does not.

Most of that gap is depth rather than difference: 181 documents can accommodate a component named once without distorting the column, while in 104 documents the same lone report claims about a point. It is not evidence that the missing parts never fail on the other brand.

The shapes underneath#

GE's list has a clear peak and a long descent — the board at 13%, then a mid-band of motor, lint trap and cord between 7% and 4%, then a tail of six components at 2% or less. Maytag's list barely peaks at all: the board at 8%, then three components tied at 4% and two at 3%, then two at 1%.

A peaked record points somewhere; a flat one does not. That difference in shape is more durable than any individual row here, because it does not depend on where the rounding fell.

The practical read#

Both records start at the control board, and on the GE side that is the best-supported finding on the page at 23 filings. After it, GE's record points at the motor and Maytag's spreads across the heating element, motor and wiring or power cord at 4% each, with the drain pump or hose worth a look on the strength of 3.

None of that ranks the two brands, and the page cannot be made to. It describes which components the filed complaints name, for two records of unequal depth covering the same fifteen years.

GE vs Maytag washers: what the reports mention#

Both columns are shares of their own corpus, and the corpora differ in size. GE: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for GE washers, 2011-2026, n=181. 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.

GE washers: the reported component split#

GE washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for GE washers, 2011-2026, n=181.

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.