LG vs Maytag refrigerators: an incident-report comparison

What this LG vs Maytag comparison is based on#

Two federal complaint records are counted here: 192 CPSC SaferProducts incident reports naming a component on an LG refrigerator between 2011 and 2026, and 76 doing the same for a Maytag refrigerator across the same window. Each share is a share of its own column's total, and neither total counts refrigerators sold or in service.

Maytag's second row is bigger than LG's first#

The quickest way to see the difference between these two records is to line up their top entries. Maytag's leading row is the compressor at 25%, nineteen filings; its second is the ice maker at 24%, eighteen. LG's leading row is the ice maker at 13%, 24 filings.

So Maytag's second-place component takes a larger share of its record than LG's first-place component takes of LG's. That is a difference in concentration rather than in ranking, and it is the frame for both headline gaps: the compressor at 16 points and the ice maker at 11, both in Maytag's direction.

Two rows rising together by comparable amounts is the signature of a record that concentrates, not of two independent brand differences on unrelated parts. Roughly half the Maytag filings named one of those two components; on the LG side the same two take about a fifth.

What LG has instead#

A record that spreads has more rows worth reading, and LG's does. Its control board takes 7%, fourteen filings, against 4% and three filings on the Maytag side — 3 points, and the only gap on this page running LG's way with a real count behind it.

Below that, LG's water valve or line takes 3%, six filings, where the Maytag record has no water valve row at all. That absence is unremarkable arithmetic in a 76-report record, but it means LG's column offers a fourth component and Maytag's does not.

LG's column therefore reads as five entries with weight — the ice maker, the compressor, the control board, the water valve and the motor — where Maytag's reads as two large rows and a short tail.

The rows that carry nothing#

The wiring or power cord shows 3 points in Maytag's direction, 4% against 1%, but that is three filings against two. The motor is a point apart, 3% against 2%, two filings against three. The condenser matches at 1%, one filing each.

On a 76-report record a single submission is worth more than a percentage point, which is why the table marks the last two as noise. The wiring row is not marked as noise but it is built on five reports in total, and it deserves the same caution.

Two column shapes, and what each is good for#

Maytag's shape is easy to act on: two components, nearly tied, holding about half the record. The one-point difference between them is a single filing, so the ordering between compressor and ice maker carries no information, but the pair does.

LG's shape is gentler — 13%, 9%, 7%, 3%, 2% — and it supports a longer diagnosis. It is also, row for row, the statistically firmer of the two records, because the record is two and a half times larger and its fourth-place entry still rests on six filings where Maytag's fourth rests on three.

Neither shape is better evidence about the machines. They are different distributions of self-selected complaints, and a record can concentrate because its complaints named components more consistently rather than because its appliances failed differently.

The tails#

Both columns end in single filings: LG carries a thermostat or sensor and a wiring row at two reports each, then a condenser and a drain pump or hose at one apiece; Maytag carries a condenser and a defrost system at one each. Rows that size are the edge of the classification rather than components worth planning around.

Reading the pair together#

Both records point a technician at the compressor and the ice maker, in different orders and at very different volumes. LG's adds the control board and the water valve as genuine third and fourth stops; Maytag's does not offer a third with more than three filings. Neither column is a failure rate, because neither counts refrigerators.

LG vs Maytag refrigerators: what the reports mention#

Both columns are shares of their own corpus, and the corpora differ in size. LG: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for LG refrigerators, 2011-2026, n=192. 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.

LG refrigerators: the reported component split#

LG refrigerators — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for LG refrigerators, 2011-2026, n=192.

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.