GE vs Whirlpool dishwashers: an incident-report comparison

What this GE vs Whirlpool comparison is based on#

Both of these records are top-heavy, and that is the first thing they have in common. Each has a single component that takes far more of its filings than anything else, and in each case the second-largest row is roughly half the size of the first or smaller. What they do not have in common is which component sits at the top.

The evidence is 433 CPSC SaferProducts incident reports naming a component on a GE [dishwasher](/blog/repair-or-replace-dishwasher) and 137 doing the same for a Whirlpool, both filed between 2011 and 2026. Each figure is a share of one brand's own filings.

Two dominant rows, pointing different ways#

Whirlpool's record is led by the control board at 49% — 67 filings, close to half of it. Its next row, the heating element, is 9%.

GE's record is led by the heating element at 33% — 141 filings. Its next row, the control board, is 17%.

Read across, that produces the two large gaps on this page: 32 points on the board in Whirlpool's favour, 24 points on the heating element in GE's. Each brand's leading component sits well down the other's column, and there is no third row large enough to bridge them.

The rows where the two records nearly meet#

Underneath the leaders the columns converge. Wiring or the power cord is 5% for GE and 8% for Whirlpool, which is 23 filings against 11. The motor is 2% against 4%, seven filings against six. The thermostat or sensor is one filing on the GE side and two on the Whirlpool side, which the table marks as noise.

Those rows matter mainly as a check on the two above them. Both records are drawn from the same database over the same eleven years, and away from their leading components they look much alike — which suggests the large gaps are about where filings concentrate rather than about which parts these tables can see.

What the shapes support#

A repair prior for each machine and no comparison between them. A Whirlpool dishwasher that will not start a cycle, has lost its display or behaves erratically at the panel lands inside the region that dominates its own record. A GE that has stopped heating lands inside the region that dominates its.

Neither statement carries a frequency. A share here has filings in its denominator, never machines, and no public source states how many dishwashers of either brand are in service. The database is also weighted toward fire, smoke, burn and melt reports, which raises the visibility of any component capable of overheating — a caveat that lands on a heating-element row and a control-board row alike.

GE vs Whirlpool dishwashers: 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 dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=433. 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 dishwashers: the reported component split#

GE dishwashers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for GE dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=433.

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.