Kenmore vs Samsung washers: an incident-report comparison

What this Kenmore vs Samsung comparison is based on#

One component does nearly all the disagreeing on this page. The drain pump or hose is named in 22 of the 540 CPSC SaferProducts reports filed against Samsung washers, and in 1 of the 208 filed against Kenmore washers. Both sets cover 2011 to 2026. Every other row in the comparison leans the same direction and for the same arithmetical reason.

As always these are submissions rather than inspections. Somebody wrote each report; nobody writes one about a washer that works; and the CPSC publishes no figure for washers sold or in service, so the shares below stay shares of complaints.

The drain pump row is the finding#

At 4% of the Samsung reports against 0% of the Kenmore ones, it is a 4-point gap, and unlike most wide rows in this class it holds up when the percentages are set aside. 22 documents against 1 is not something a denominator can manufacture: Samsung's corpus is larger, which would ordinarily push its share down, and the share is the higher one anyway.

The Kenmore cell rounds to zero on a single filing. The component is not absent from that record; it is named once in 208 documents, which rounds away.

Samsung is the only record here not led by the control board#

The drain pump or hose is also Samsung's top entry, level with the control board at 4% on 20 filings. Across the washer comparisons in this class the control board leads almost everywhere, and this is the record that breaks the pattern.

Kenmore's record does not break it. Its control board takes 9% on 18 filings, and its second place goes to the lint trap or vent at 7% on 14. Those two components account for the shape of that column.

Every other gap runs the way the denominators push#

The control board splits 9% for Kenmore against 4% for Samsung — 18 filings against 20. More Samsung documents, smaller Samsung share, because one column is divided by 208 and the other by 540. The lint trap or vent splits 7% against 2% on 14 filings against 9. The wiring or power cord splits 4% against 2% on 9 against 13, another row where the larger count sits under the smaller percentage.

The motor does the same at 4% against 2%, on 8 filings against 9, and the heating element at 2% against 1%, on 5 against 8. In four of those five rows Samsung has as many documents as Kenmore or more, and in all five the Kenmore share is the taller one.

One row that separates nothing#

The water valve or line is at 1% in both columns, on 2 Kenmore filings against 3 Samsung ones, and the table marks it as showing no measured difference. It is the only genuine tie on the page.

Two flat records at different depths#

Nine components appear in each list. Samsung's tops out at 4% and stays inside a narrow band all the way down to a drum bearing named once. Kenmore's tops out at 9% and descends through 7%, 4%, 4%, 2% and a tail at 1%.

Kenmore's column is the taller one throughout, and that is mostly a property of its denominator: one Kenmore filing is worth about half a percentage point of its column, one Samsung filing about a fifth of a point. Neither record has a component that dominates it, and neither points anywhere with much force apart from the two rows already named.

The practical read#

For a [Samsung washer](/blog/samsung-washer-dryer-combo-error-codes), the reported incidents divide between the drain pump or hose and the control board, on 22 and 20 filings, with nothing else above 2%. For a Kenmore washer, they point at the control board on 18 filings and the lint trap or vent on 14.

That is a genuine difference in emphasis, and it is the only thing on this page that survives being read in documents rather than in percentages. It is not a statement about how often either machine needs a repair, because nothing in this database can support one.

Kenmore vs Samsung 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. Samsung: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Samsung washers, 2011-2026, n=540. 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.

Samsung washers: the reported component split#

Samsung washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Samsung washers, 2011-2026, n=540.

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.