Kenmore vs Samsung refrigerators: an incident-report comparison

What this Kenmore vs Samsung comparison is based on#

Two federal complaint records are counted on this page: 373 CPSC SaferProducts incident reports naming a component on a Kenmore refrigerator between 2011 and 2025, and 1,556 doing the same for a Samsung refrigerator between 2011 and 2026. Every share belongs to its own column, and neither total counts refrigerators sold or in service.

Both records are large. That is unusual in this comparison set and it changes what the page can support: the differences below are between two well-measured columns, not between one measurement and a handful of reports.

A 37-point gap with real counts on both sides#

The ice maker takes 46% of the Samsung record — 715 filings — and 9% of the Kenmore one, 35 filings. Thirty-seven points is the widest separation anywhere in this comparison set.

It is also, unusually, a gap that neither side can wave away. Thirty-five filings is a modest but genuine count, and 715 is enormous. Reclassifying a few reports on either side would leave the gap essentially untouched, which is not true of most wide gaps in this material.

So the arithmetic is solid. What it means is the harder question, and the page should be honest that it cannot resolve it. A complaint record measures failures that someone chose to report. An ice maker that leaks or floods produces a visible household event and a filing; one that stops quietly produces a service call and nothing federal. Two brands could have identical hardware and still land far apart on this row if their failures present differently.

The compressor runs the other way, and that matters#

The second-largest difference is the compressor: 11% of the Kenmore record, 42 filings, against 4% of the Samsung one, 66 filings. Seven points, in Kenmore's direction.

That reversal is worth more than its size, because it rules out the laziest reading of the ice maker row. If Samsung's record simply named components more freely, every row would lean Samsung. Instead the sealed system leans the other way, and so do the wiring or power cord at 2 points and the motor at 1.

Note also what happens when the compressor row is converted to counts: Samsung's smaller share rests on more filings than Kenmore's larger one, 66 against 42. Shares of different denominators compare emphasis, never quantity.

Where each record has depth the other lacks#

Three rows lean Samsung by small margins and all three are backed by dozens of its filings: the evaporator at 4% against 1%, 58 reports against two; the thermostat or sensor at 3% against 1%, 39 against five; the water valve or line at 1% against 0%, eighteen against one.

Those are the rows where a very large record shows its advantage. In 1,556 filings a 3% row is a real feature. In 373 filings, two or five reports is not.

Running the other way, Kenmore's control board takes 7% against Samsung's 5%, 25 filings against 72 — the same inversion as the compressor, and again a case where the smaller share sits on the larger count.

What two large records buy that one large record does not#

Most pairings in this comparison set are lopsided: one column can resolve a rare component and the other cannot, so half the table is a measurement set against a handful of reports. This page is one of the few where both columns can carry weight through their top five rows, and that changes which questions it can answer.

It means, first, that the direction of each gap is informative. When the ice maker leans one way by 37 points and the compressor leans the other by 7, both of those leans are measured, and the mixed pattern is a real property of the two records rather than an accident of one being thin.

It means, second, that the size of a gap and the reliability of a gap come apart cleanly here. The evaporator difference is 3 points and rests on 58 Samsung filings against two Kenmore ones — small and half-measured. The compressor difference is 7 points and rests on 66 against 42 — larger and fully measured. A reader who sorts this table by the size of the gap will not be sorting it by how much each row can be trusted.

And it means, third, that the one thing neither record supplies is still the decisive one. Two well-measured shares of two self-selected complaint sets remain shares of complaints. The denominator that would turn either into a rate — refrigerators sold, or in service — is not in this data at any size.

The rows that match#

Two rows show no measured difference at all: the condenser at 1% on both sides, two Kenmore filings against eighteen Samsung ones, and the defrost system at 0% on both, one against three. Both tails end in single reports — Samsung's carries a drain pump or hose at one filing and a heating element at two — which is the edge of the classification rather than a component profile.

One asymmetry to keep in view#

The Kenmore record stops in 2025 and the Samsung one runs to 2026, so Kenmore's most recent filings are absent. Against a fourteen-year window and a 37-point headline that is immaterial, but it is another reason to leave the one-point rows alone.

Reading the pair together#

The two columns give a technician different first stops: the compressor on a Kenmore, the ice maker on a Samsung, and on a Samsung by so much that little else in that record competes. Kenmore's column offers three components with weight — compressor, ice maker, control board — where Samsung's offers one and then a cluster of small but well-measured rows. Neither is a failure rate, because neither counts refrigerators.

Kenmore vs Samsung 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. Samsung: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Samsung refrigerators, 2011-2026, n=1556. 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.

Samsung refrigerators: the reported component split#

Samsung refrigerators — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Samsung refrigerators, 2011-2026, n=1556.

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.