KitchenAid vs Whirlpool dishwashers: an incident-report comparison

What this KitchenAid vs Whirlpool comparison is based on#

These two records agree about their main subject. The control board leads both — 62% of the KitchenAid filings and 49% of the Whirlpool ones — and in both cases by a distance that leaves no other component close.

So the comparison moves down a row. What each record puts in second place is where the two actually differ, and it is a smaller difference than most pages in this set contain.

The evidence is 360 CPSC SaferProducts filings naming a component on a KitchenAid [dishwasher](/blog/repair-or-replace-dishwasher) and 137 doing the same for a Whirlpool, both made between 2011 and 2026.

Second place#

KitchenAid's second row is wiring or the power cord at 15%, which is 55 filings. Whirlpool's second row is the heating element at 9%, which is 12 filings, with wiring or the power cord just behind at 8%, or 11.

Read across, wiring or the power cord differs by 7 points in KitchenAid's favour and the heating element by 5 points in Whirlpool's. Neither gap is large, and one of them — the heating element — has only a dozen filings on the side that leads it.

That is the whole of the disagreement. The board differs by 13 points, which does not change its position at the top of either column.

The rows the table refuses to separate#

Three of the six rows on this page are marked as no measured difference. The motor is 4% in both columns, thirteen filings against six. The thermostat or sensor is 1% in both, four against two. The drain pump or hose is 1% in both, three filings against one.

A table where half the rows read as identical is telling you something about the pair rather than about the data being thin. Both columns are deep enough to distinguish real gaps — KitchenAid's leading row alone is 223 filings — and they simply do not diverge below their second row.

What a shared leader does not establish#

Two records leading with the same component invites the reading that the component is the weak point of both machines. It does not establish that, for a reason that has nothing to do with either brand: the control board leads a majority of the dishwasher records in this comparison set, across manufacturers with no obvious relationship to each other. A component that appears at the top of most records is telling you something about what gets filed — an electronic failure that stops a machine dead is visible, alarming and easy to describe — as much as about what breaks.

The corpus weighting compounds it. A database built around fire, smoke, burn and melt incidents will foreground any component that can produce those, and will under-count the parts that simply stop working without drama. Both columns here inherit that bias identically, which is one more reason their agreement is less informative than it looks.

What survives, and what does not#

What survives is a shared description with one qualification. For either brand, the filed record is overwhelmingly about the control board, and after that KitchenAid's record leans toward wiring while Whirlpool's leans, slightly, toward heat.

What does not survive is any claim about frequency. Both columns have filings in the denominator, not machines; no public source states how many dishwashers of either brand are in service; and the corpus over-represents incidents with a safety dimension, which applies to both records equally. A 62% row and a 49% row are statements about what was reported, and they remain that no matter how firm their counts.

KitchenAid vs Whirlpool dishwashers: what the reports mention#

Both columns are shares of their own corpus, and the corpora differ in size. KitchenAid: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for KitchenAid dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=360. Whirlpool: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Whirlpool dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=137. 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.

KitchenAid dishwashers: the reported component split#

KitchenAid dishwashers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for KitchenAid dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=360.

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

Whirlpool dishwashers: the reported component split#

Whirlpool dishwashers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Whirlpool dishwashers, 2011-2026, n=137.

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.