Kenmore vs KitchenAid dishwashers: an incident-report comparison

What this Kenmore vs KitchenAid comparison is based on#

Almost every other pairing in this comparison set puts two differently-shaped records side by side. This one puts two records of the same shape side by side, and the question becomes how much harder one concentrates than the other.

Kenmore contributes 461 CPSC SaferProducts filings naming a component on a [dishwasher](/blog/repair-or-replace-dishwasher), made between 2011 and 2025. KitchenAid contributes 360, made between 2011 and 2026. Both are deep records. Both are dominated by the control board. Neither has a second component that comes close to it.

The same leader, at two intensities#

The board takes 53% of the Kenmore filings — 246 reports, a majority — and 62% of the KitchenAid ones, which is 223. That is a 9-point difference on a row that leads both columns by a wide margin, and it is the largest gap on the page.

Nine points between two records of this depth is a real difference and a small one. It does not change what either record is about. Both say the same thing: among reports filed about these dishwashers, the control board is the subject of most of them.

The one row that genuinely separates them#

Wiring or the power cord is the exception worth naming. It appears in 15% of the KitchenAid filings — 55 reports — against 7% of the Kenmore ones, which is 31. That 8-point gap is nearly as wide as the board gap, and unlike the board gap it changes the shape of the column: KitchenAid's record has a substantial second component, and Kenmore's does not.

Kenmore's second, third and fourth rows sit at 7%, 6% and 5%, close enough together that their ordering is not meaningful. KitchenAid's second row is 15% and its third is 4%. So the difference between these records is less about the leader than about what follows it.

Where they run out of difference#

The remaining rows are small and nearly identical. The heating element is 6% for Kenmore against 4% for KitchenAid. The motor is 5% against 4%. The thermostat or sensor is 1% in both columns, which the table records as no measured difference, and the drain pump or hose rounds to nothing on the Kenmore side against 1% on the other.

All of those rest on real counts — a 5% row in a 461-report column is 24 separate filings — so this is a genuine agreement rather than two thin tails happening to line up.

The limit is the usual one and it is not softened by the agreement. Neither column has a count of machines behind it, so neither 53% nor 62% converts into how often a board fails. What the page supports is a shared prior: for either brand, a dishwasher that will not start or has lost its panel lands in the region that dominates its record, and for a KitchenAid a wiring or cord complaint is a realistic second.

Kenmore vs KitchenAid dishwashers: what the reports mention#

Both columns are shares of their own corpus, and the corpora differ in size. Kenmore: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Kenmore dishwashers, 2011-2025, n=461. KitchenAid: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for KitchenAid dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=360. 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.

Kenmore dishwashers: the reported component split#

Kenmore dishwashers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Kenmore dishwashers, 2011-2025, n=461.

Shares of reports, not failure rates — see the corpus note above.

KitchenAid dishwashers: the reported component split#

KitchenAid dishwashers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for KitchenAid dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=360.

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.