Kenmore vs Maytag refrigerators: an incident-report comparison

What this Kenmore vs Maytag comparison is based on#

Two federal complaint records are counted here: 373 CPSC SaferProducts incident reports naming a component on a Kenmore refrigerator between 2011 and 2025, and 76 doing the same for a Maytag refrigerator between 2011 and 2026. Every share is a share of its own column, and neither total counts refrigerators sold or in service.

The same ranking, at very different intensities#

Both records put the compressor first and the ice maker second. That agreement on order is the starting point, and it is not trivial — several pairings in this comparison set do not agree on the top of the column at all.

What differs is how much of each record those two rows hold. On the Maytag side the compressor takes 25% and the ice maker 24%, nineteen filings against eighteen, so the two together account for about half of a 76-report record. On the Kenmore side the same two take 11% and 9%, 42 filings against 35, or a fifth of a much larger one.

The gaps the table reports — 14 points on the compressor and 15 on the ice maker — are therefore best read as one observation rather than two. The Maytag record concentrates into its top two rows; the Kenmore record spreads.

What concentration is and is not evidence of#

A record concentrates for reasons that have little to do with hardware. If a larger share of its complaints named a component at all — rather than describing a symptom and stopping — its named rows all rise together. That is exactly the pattern here: two rows up by roughly the same amount, in the same direction, on the two components that dominate both columns.

So the defensible statement is narrow. Among Maytag complaints that named a part, half named the compressor or the ice maker. Among Kenmore complaints that named a part, those two lead but take much less of the total. Nothing in either record supports converting that into how often either brand's compressor fails.

Kenmore's distinguishing third row#

The one component that runs the other way is the control board: 7% of the Kenmore reports, 25 filings, against 4% of the Maytag ones, three filings. Three points, and the direction matters more than the size.

On the Kenmore side that row is a genuine third place, supported by enough filings to survive a few reclassifications. On the Maytag side it is three reports out of 76, which is under the threshold where a share means much. So the honest reading is that the Kenmore record has a third component with weight and the Maytag record does not, rather than that Maytag boards are more reliable.

The rows that carry nothing#

The remaining comparisons are all small on both sides and the table marks each as noise or as no measured difference. The wiring or power cord is a point apart, 3% against 4%, twelve filings against three. The motor is a point apart, 2% against 3%, eight against two. The defrost system is a point apart on one filing each. The condenser matches at 1%, two filings against one.

In a 76-report record a single filing is worth more than a percentage point, which is why none of those rows should be read as a difference at all.

Kenmore's column also runs deeper simply because it is larger: it carries a thermostat or sensor at 1% and an evaporator at 1% where the Maytag record has neither. Absence in a record that size is arithmetic rather than engineering.

One asymmetry to keep in view#

The Kenmore record stops in 2025 and the Maytag one runs to 2026, so the most recent Kenmore filings are missing. Over fourteen years that is minor, and it does not touch the two headline rows — but it is a further reason to leave the one-point rows alone.

Reading the pair together#

Both columns hand a technician the same first two stops in the same order: the compressor, then the ice maker. The Kenmore record adds the control board as a real third; the Maytag record does not offer one. Neither column is a failure rate, because neither counts refrigerators.

Kenmore vs Maytag refrigerators: 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 refrigerators, 2011-2025, n=373. Maytag: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag refrigerators, 2011-2026, n=76. 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 refrigerators: the reported component split#

Kenmore refrigerators — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Kenmore refrigerators, 2011-2025, n=373.

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

Maytag refrigerators: the reported component split#

Maytag refrigerators — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag refrigerators, 2011-2026, n=76.

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.