Kenmore vs LG washers: an incident-report comparison

What this Kenmore vs LG comparison is based on#

Both records here are deep by the standards of this database and both cover the same years. The CPSC SaferProducts collection holds 208 incident reports naming a Kenmore washer and 295 naming an LG washer, all filed between 2011 and 2026. Nothing on the page turns on a handful of documents, which is not something most comparisons in this class can say.

The limits are the ordinary ones. A report is a submission — somebody wrote it — and no report exists for a washer that is behaving. The CPSC does not publish how many washers of either brand were sold or are still running, so these are shares of complaints and never rates.

Kenmore is the one record where the lint path comes second#

Across the washer comparisons in this set, second place usually belongs to a motor, a cord or a drain pump. The Kenmore record puts the lint trap or vent there instead, at 7% on 14 filings, behind the control board at 9% on 18. In the LG record the same component sits at 3% on 8 filings, tied with two others.

That is the sharpest difference on the page and one of only two rows that reaches 4 percentage points. It also holds in raw counts — 14 documents against 8 — despite Kenmore's corpus being the smaller of the two, which is the arrangement that makes a row worth some weight.

The other 4-point row is the control board#

The control board splits 9% for Kenmore against 5% for LG, on 18 filings against 14. Again the smaller corpus carries both the higher share and more paperwork, and again the row survives being read either way.

Those two rows are the whole of the difference between these records at any scale worth mentioning. After them the table drops to 2 points and below.

Almost everything else is a tie or close to one#

The motor shows no measured difference at all: 4% in both columns, on 8 Kenmore filings against 13 LG ones. The wiring or power cord is separated by a single point, 4% against 3%, and rests on 9 filings on each side — the same number of documents, printed as different percentages because one is divided by 208 and the other by 295.

Below those, the water valve or line splits 1% against 2% on 2 filings against 5, the drain pump or hose 0% against 1% on 1 against 3, and the drive belt and thermostat or sensor each lean toward Kenmore by a point on two or three documents. The heating element is the last row above the floor: 2% for Kenmore against 0% for LG, on 5 filings against 1.

Where the rounding hides things#

Four LG entries round to 0% — the condenser, the drive belt, the heating element and the thermostat or sensor — and each is a single report. One Kenmore entry does the same: the drain pump or hose, one report in 208.

A cell reading 0% in either column is a rounded share and not an empty one. In a corpus of forty documents the same lone filing would print as 2% or 3% and read like a finding, which is the whole reason these tables carry their report counts alongside.

Two records that mostly agree#

Nine components appear on the Kenmore side and eleven on the LG side, and both are led by the control board. LG names an igniter at 3%, on 8 filings, that Kenmore does not name at all; Kenmore names a thermostat or sensor three times where LG names one once.

Read from the top, the two lists tell a similar story with a different second act. Kenmore's points at the lint path; LG's spreads its second tier across the motor, the wiring, the igniter and the lint trap in a band between 4% and 3%.

The practical read#

For a washer of either badge, the control board is where the reported incidents concentrate first. After that, a Kenmore washer's record adds the lint trap or vent as a genuine second item on 14 filings, while an LG washer's record offers four candidates of nearly equal weight and no clear order among them.

Neither statement ranks the brands. Both describe records of similar depth, covering the same fifteen years, that disagree in exactly two places.

Kenmore vs LG washers: 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 washers, 2011-2026, n=208. LG: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for LG washers, 2011-2026, n=295. 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 washers: the reported component split#

Kenmore washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Kenmore washers, 2011-2026, n=208.

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

LG washers: the reported component split#

LG washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for LG washers, 2011-2026, n=295.

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.