Kenmore vs Maytag dishwashers: an incident-report comparison

What this Kenmore vs Maytag comparison is based on#

Start with the row that is easy to overlook. The heating element is named in 23% of the Maytag filings — 52 reports — and in 6% of the Kenmore ones, which is 29. A 17-point gap, well evidenced on both sides, and it is the difference that gives these two records their different characters.

The evidence behind them is 461 CPSC SaferProducts reports naming a component on a Kenmore [dishwasher](/blog/repair-or-replace-dishwasher), filed between 2011 and 2025, and 228 doing the same for a Maytag, filed between 2011 and 2026. Both columns are shares of their own totals.

One subject against two#

Kenmore's record has one subject. The control board takes 53% of it, a majority, and the next three rows — wiring or the power cord at 7%, the heating element at 6%, the motor at 5% — sit within two points of each other far below. Asked what Kenmore dishwasher reports are about, the record gives one answer.

Maytag's record gives two. The control board leads at 25% and the heating element follows at 23%, which is 57 filings against 52 — close enough that a handful of additional reports would swap them. Wiring or the power cord is a substantial third at 13%. Asked the same question, that record offers a shortlist.

The gaps, and which of them carry weight#

The control board separates the columns by 28 points, 53% against 25%. The heating element separates them by 17 in the other direction. Wiring or the power cord adds 6 points in Maytag's favour, 13% against 7%, and the motor 2 points in Kenmore's.

The first three all rest on dozens of filings on both sides, so none of them is fragile. The fourth is small enough that it should not be leaned on, and the thermostat row — 1% in both columns — is marked by the table as no measured difference.

What each shape is good for#

A concentrated record and a spread record support different kinds of expectation, and neither supports a ranking.

For a Kenmore, the filed record points at one region: a machine that will not start, has lost its display or behaves erratically at the panel is in the part of the record that everything else is dwarfed by. For a Maytag, the record points at two regions of nearly equal size, with a wiring complaint a realistic third.

Neither is a statement about 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 corpus also over-represents incidents with a safety dimension, which affects the heating-element row on both sides and is worth holding in mind on a page where that row is the pivot.

Kenmore vs Maytag 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. Maytag: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=228. 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.

Maytag dishwashers: the reported component split#

Maytag dishwashers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=228.

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.