LG vs Samsung washers: an incident-report comparison

What this LG vs Samsung comparison is based on#

These are the two deepest washer records in the CPSC SaferProducts collection: 540 incident reports naming a [Samsung washer](/blog/samsung-washer-dryer-combo-error-codes) and 295 naming an LG washer, all filed between 2011 and 2026. Together they hold more paperwork than any other pairing in this class, and the table they produce is one of the narrowest — no component separates the two by more than 3 percentage points.

A great deal of evidence and very little difference is a combination worth stating plainly. It is also the only combination in this class where a near-tie means something, because elsewhere a narrow table usually reflects a corpus too small to show anything else.

Both records remain counts of complaints. Somebody filed each one, and the CPSC publishes no figure for washers sold or running, so the shares here are shares of reports and cannot become rates.

The drain pump is the one real separation#

The drain pump or hose is named in 4% of the Samsung reports against 1% of the LG ones — 22 filings against 3, a 3-point gap and the widest on the page. It is also Samsung's leading component, level with the control board at 4% on 20 filings.

This row does what almost nothing else in this class does: it holds its direction in both readings. Samsung has the larger corpus, which pushes shares down, and the higher share anyway, on more than seven times the documents. Samsung is the only washer record in this set whose top entry is not the control board, and this is the component that displaces it.

The igniter runs the other way#

LG's record names an igniter in 3% of its reports, on 8 filings, against 1% of Samsung's on 3. Two points, and the direction again survives being read in documents: 8 against 3, from the smaller corpus.

It is a small finding and a real one. Along with the drain pump row it is one of only two places on this page where both the share and the count point the same way.

Everything else is within a point or two#

The motor splits 4% for LG against 2% for Samsung, on 13 filings against 9. The control board splits 5% against 4%, on 14 filings against 20 — more Samsung documents beneath the smaller share. The lint trap or vent splits 3% against 2% on 8 against 9, the wiring or power cord 3% against 2% on 9 against 13, the water valve or line 2% against 1% on 5 against 3, and the heating element 0% against 1% on 1 against 8.

In four of those six rows Samsung holds more filings than LG and the smaller percentage. That is the ordinary consequence of dividing by 540 rather than 295, and it is why the difference column reads as a slight LG tilt that the counts do not support.

Two of the flattest records in the collection#

Neither list has a peak. LG's runs 5%, 4%, 3%, 3%, 3%, 2%, 1% and then four components that round to 0%. Samsung's runs 4%, 4%, 2%, 2%, 2%, 1%, 1%, 1% and a drum bearing at 0%. Eleven components on one side, nine on the other, and nothing on either that claims a large portion of its record.

Flat profiles built on hundreds of documents are a stronger statement than flat profiles built on dozens. These two records are not flat because there was too little evidence to show structure; they are flat because the reports genuinely disagree about what a washer complaint is about.

What that means for a diagnosis#

A flat record argues against betting on one component. For an LG washer, the reported incidents give five candidates within a couple of points of each other: the control board, the motor, the wiring or power cord, the igniter and the lint trap or vent. For a Samsung washer, they give two at the top — the drain pump or hose and the control board — and then a similar spread.

The single practical difference between the two shortlists is where the drain pump or hose sits: first on the Samsung side, near the bottom on the LG side.

The practical read#

Most of this table is agreement. Two rows are not, and both are worth carrying: the drain pump or hose toward Samsung on 22 filings against 3, and the igniter toward LG on 8 against 3. Every other component divides the two records almost identically.

None of this ranks the brands. It describes what 835 complaints, filed over fifteen years, happened to name.

LG vs Samsung washers: 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 washers, 2011-2026, n=295. 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.

LG washers: the reported component split#

LG washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for LG washers, 2011-2026, n=295.

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.