Kenmore vs LG dishwashers: an incident-report comparison

What this Kenmore vs LG comparison is based on#

The control board leads both of these records. That is where the agreement ends, and the rest of the page is about what each record does with the space below its leader.

The evidence is 461 CPSC SaferProducts filings naming a component on a Kenmore [dishwasher](/blog/repair-or-replace-dishwasher), made between 2011 and 2025, and 47 doing the same for an LG, made between 2011 and 2026. The depth difference is nearly ten to one, which shapes how firmly each column can be read.

First place, held differently#

Kenmore's board row is 53% — 246 filings, a majority of its record. LG's board row is 30%, which is 14 filings. Both lead, but they lead by very different distances. Kenmore's second row is 7%; LG's second row is 28%, which is almost level with its first.

So one record has a leader that dwarfs everything else, and the other has a leader that is barely ahead. Those are different kinds of dominance, and the 23-point gap between the two board shares understates the difference in shape.

What follows the leader#

For Kenmore, very little. Wiring or the power cord is 7%, the heating element 6%, the motor 5% — three rows within two points of each other, each backed by 24 to 31 filings, and none of them close to the leader.

For LG, quite a lot. Wiring or the power cord is 28%, 13 filings, effectively tied with the board. The motor is 15%, which is 7 filings. Those two rows are what produce the page's other gaps: 21 points on wiring in LG's favour and 10 points on the motor, both running opposite to the board gap.

How much of that the smaller record can carry#

Enough for the top three rows and nothing beyond them. At 47 filings a single report is worth roughly two points, so LG's 30%, 28% and 15% rows — 14, 13 and 7 reports — establish that the board, the wiring and the motor are what its record is about, while its remaining rows are single filings and should be read as presence rather than as measurement.

Kenmore's column has the opposite property: it is legible all the way down, because even its 1% row is five filings. That asymmetry means the wiring gap is firm on both sides, the motor gap is firm on Kenmore's side and thin on LG's, and the heating-element gap of 4 points — 29 Kenmore filings against a single LG one — is really a statement that nothing was filed rather than that little failed.

The limit that no amount of depth removes is the denominator. Both columns count filings, no public source states how many dishwashers of either brand are in service, and the corpus leans toward safety incidents. So this page supports a description of two records and no ranking of two machines.

Kenmore vs LG 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. LG: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for LG dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=47. 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.

LG dishwashers: the reported component split#

LG dishwashers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for LG dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=47.

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.