What this Maytag vs Samsung comparison is based on#
There is a row on this page the table marks as noise even though it carries more documents than any other row in the comparison. The drain pump or hose is named in 3% of the Maytag reports and 4% of the Samsung ones — a single percentage point apart, and behind it sit 3 Maytag filings and 22 Samsung ones.
That is not a defect in the table. It is a reminder of what the noise marking measures: the width of one percentage-point step in the smaller column, not the weight of evidence in the larger one. The sources are CPSC SaferProducts incident reports covering 2011 to 2026 — 104 naming a Maytag washer, 540 naming a Samsung one — and neither is divided by machines sold, because no public source states that number.
What the noise marking actually says#
One Maytag report is worth about one point of its column. So any gap of a single point between these two records could be produced by moving one Maytag filing, and the table refuses to call it a difference.
Applied to the drain pump or hose, that verdict is technically right and easy to misread. In documents, the Samsung record names that component more than seven times as often as the Maytag record does, and it is Samsung's joint-leading entry. The row is marked noise because of what one Maytag filing is worth, not because the Samsung side is thin.
The rows the table does call differences#
Four components separate the two by 2 points or more, and all of them lean Maytag. The control board is at 8% against 4%, on 8 filings against 20. The heating element is at 4% against 1%, on 4 filings against 8. The motor is at 4% against 2%, on 4 filings against 9. The wiring or power cord is at 4% against 2%, on 4 filings against 13.
In every one of those, Samsung holds more documents than Maytag and the smaller share. That is the standard consequence of dividing by 540 rather than 104, and it means none of the four survives being read as a count.
So the table leans one way and the paperwork leans the other#
Put the two previous sections together and the shape of this comparison is clear. Maytag leads four rows in percentage terms and leads none of them in filings. Samsung's one apparent near-tie is the row where its document count is overwhelming.
The lint trap or vent behaves the same way as the four: 3% for Maytag against 2% for Samsung, on 3 filings against 9. Only the water valve or line shows no measured difference at all, at 1% in both columns on 1 filing against 3.
Two flat records at very different depths#
Neither list has a dominant component. Maytag's runs 8%, then three components tied at 4%, two at 3% and two at 1%. Samsung's runs 4%, 4%, then three at 2%, three at 1% and a drum bearing rounding to 0% on a single report.
Eight components appear on the Maytag side and nine on the Samsung side. The heights differ mostly because the denominators do — every Maytag entry is inflated relative to a Samsung entry built from the same amount of paper.
The one genuine difference in emphasis#
Strip out the denominator effects and what remains is where each record puts the drain pump or hose. Samsung's places it first, level with the control board at 4%, on 22 filings. Maytag's places it fifth, on 3.
Samsung is the only washer record in this class not led by the control board, and this is the component that displaces it. That is the finding this page supports, and the table's noise marking on that row does not weaken it.
The practical read#
For a Maytag washer, the reported incidents point at the control board first, on 8 filings, then at a flat band of heating element, motor and wiring or power cord at 4% each. For a [Samsung washer](/blog/samsung-washer-dryer-combo-error-codes), they point at the drain pump or hose and the control board together, on 22 and 20 filings, with nothing else above 2%.
Neither record says how often either machine needs work. Both say what the complaints that exist happen to name.
Maytag vs Samsung washers: what the reports mention#
Both columns are shares of their own corpus, and the corpora differ in size. Maytag: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag washers, 2011-2026, n=104. 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".
| Component mentioned | Maytag | Samsung | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Board | 8% (8 of 104) | 4% (20 of 540) | 4 points more often for Maytag |
| Heating Element | 4% (4 of 104) | 1% (8 of 540) | 3 points more often for Maytag |
| Motor | 4% (4 of 104) | 2% (9 of 540) | 2 points more often for Maytag |
| Wiring or Power Cord | 4% (4 of 104) | 2% (13 of 540) | 2 points more often for Maytag |
| Drain Pump or Hose | 3% (3 of 104) | 4% (22 of 540) | 1 point more often for Samsung (within one-report noise) |
| Lint Trap or Vent | 3% (3 of 104) | 2% (9 of 540) | 1 point more often for Maytag (within one-report noise) |
| Water Valve or Line | 1% (1 of 104) | 1% (3 of 540) | no measured difference (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.
Do You Have the Right Tools?
Bearing puller set ($120), drum spider wrench ($85), multimeter ($85), and diagnostic software. Our technician arrives with $3,000+ in professional tools — your diagnostic is free.
Licensed & Insured · 90-Day Warranty · Same-Day Service
Maytag washers: the reported component split#
Maytag washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Maytag washers, 2011-2026, n=104.
| Component mentioned | Share of reports | Reports |
|---|---|---|
| Control Board | 8% | 8 of 104 |
| Heating Element | 4% | 4 of 104 |
| Motor | 4% | 4 of 104 |
| Wiring or Power Cord | 4% | 4 of 104 |
| Drain Pump or Hose | 3% | 3 of 104 |
| Lint Trap or Vent | 3% | 3 of 104 |
| Thermostat or Sensor | 1% | 1 of 104 |
| Water Valve or Line | 1% | 1 of 104 |
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.
| Component mentioned | Share of reports | Reports |
|---|---|---|
| Drain Pump or Hose | 4% | 22 of 540 |
| Control Board | 4% | 20 of 540 |
| Wiring or Power Cord | 2% | 13 of 540 |
| Lint Trap or Vent | 2% | 9 of 540 |
| Motor | 2% | 9 of 540 |
| Heating Element | 1% | 8 of 540 |
| Igniter | 1% | 3 of 540 |
| Water Valve or Line | 1% | 3 of 540 |
| Drum Bearing | 0% | 1 of 540 |
Shares of reports, not failure rates — see the corpus note above.
Safety First — Know the Risks
High-voltage components and pressurized water lines create flood and shock risk. A single loose fitting can cause thousands in water damage. Our techs are licensed and insured — let them handle the risk.
Licensed & Insured · 90-Day Warranty · Same-Day Service
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.
Senior Appliance Repair Technician · 15 years experience
EPA-certified technician with 15 years of experience specializing in refrigerator and cooling system repairs.
