GE vs Samsung washers: an incident-report comparison

What this GE vs Samsung comparison is based on#

Two component lists can be built on almost the same number of documents and still describe different appliances. The largest group of filings in the GE record names the control board: 23 reports. The largest group in the Samsung record names the drain pump or hose: 22 reports. One document apart, and they head two lists that agree about very little.

The sources are CPSC SaferProducts incident reports covering 2011 to 2026 on both sides — 181 naming a GE washer, 540 naming a Samsung one. Both are records of complaints somebody submitted. Neither is divided by machines sold, because no public source states that figure, so nothing here is a rate.

Electronics against water handling#

Rank each record by what its reports mention and the two orders barely overlap. GE's runs control board at 13%, motor at 7%, lint trap or vent at 6%, wiring or power cord at 4%. Samsung's runs drain pump or hose at 4%, control board at 4%, then wiring or power cord, lint trap or vent and motor at 2% each.

Samsung is the only washer corpus in this class whose leading component is not the control board, and the drain pump or hose is the component that displaces it. In the GE record that same part is named once, in 181 documents. That is the sharpest disagreement between any two records on this appliance.

The board row, read two ways#

The control board is named in 23 GE reports and 20 Samsung ones — close in documents, three apart. As shares they are 13% and 4%, a 9-point gap and the widest on the page, because one is divided by 181 and the other by 540.

Both descriptions are accurate and they support different sentences. Roughly the same number of people filed a control board complaint about each brand. Within its own record, the board takes up a much larger portion of GE's than of Samsung's. Neither sentence says anything about how many washers of either brand exist.

Samsung's column is flat by construction and by content#

Nothing in the Samsung list exceeds 4%. Below its two leaders come the wiring or power cord, the lint trap or vent and the motor at 2%, the heating element, igniter and water valve or line at 1%, and a drum bearing that rounds to 0% on a single filing. Nine components, all in a narrow band.

Part of that flatness is arithmetic — 540 documents make small shares easy — but part of it is real: the two leading components together account for 42 filings, and no third component comes close to them. A record like that argues for keeping a diagnosis open rather than betting on one part.

GE's column has a peak#

GE's has a clear one. The board at 13% stands well clear of the motor at 7%, which stands clear of the lint trap or vent at 6%. Then the column descends through the cord at 4%, the drive belt and heating element at 2%, and four components at 1% or below.

Where the two records do agree, they agree quietly: the igniter is at 1% in both columns, and the water valve or line is at 1% in both. The table marks both rows as showing no measured difference.

The rows in between#

Three further components lean toward GE by margins the table treats as real: the motor at 7% against 2%, the lint trap or vent at 6% against 2%, and the wiring or power cord at 4% against 2%. Underneath, the counts are 13 filings against 9, 10 against 9, and 8 against 13.

In the last of those, Samsung has more documents behind the smaller share — 13 against 8 — which is the standard consequence of dividing by 540 rather than 181. The heating element does the same thing: 2% against 1%, on 3 GE filings against 8 Samsung ones.

The practical read#

For a GE washer, the reported incidents point first and clearly at the control board, on 23 filings. For a [Samsung washer](/blog/samsung-washer-dryer-combo-error-codes), they point at the drain pump or hose and the control board together, on 22 and 20, with nothing else above 2%.

That is a genuine difference in what the two records emphasise, and it is the useful output of this page. It is not a claim that one washer needs more repairs than the other, and the reports cannot be made to support one.

GE vs Samsung 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. 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.

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.

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.