Maytag vs Whirlpool washers: an incident-report comparison

What this Maytag vs Whirlpool comparison is based on#

The two records here are almost the same size and cover exactly the same years: 104 CPSC SaferProducts incident reports naming a Maytag washer and 115 naming a Whirlpool one, all filed between 2011 and 2026. That matters more than it sounds. Nearly every comparison in this class has to spend its first paragraphs warning that a wide gap in the percentages may be nothing but a difference in denominators. With 104 against 115, that warning largely does not apply.

The other limits are unchanged. Each report is a submission somebody chose to make, no report exists for a washer that is working, and the CPSC publishes no count of machines sold or in service — so these remain shares of complaints rather than rates.

Matched sizes, and a difference that survives them#

The control board is named in 14% of the Whirlpool reports against 8% of the Maytag ones — 16 filings against 8, a 6-point gap and the widest on the page. Twice the share and twice the documents, out of corpora eleven reports apart.

The wiring or power cord does the same thing: 8% against 4%, on 9 filings against 4. Again the share and the count point the same way, and again the denominators are too close to be doing the work.

Those two rows are the substance of this comparison. On a page where the corpora are matched, a doubling in both readings is about as strong a signal as this source produces.

Two narrower rows in the same direction#

The drain pump or hose is at 5% of the Whirlpool reports against 3% of the Maytag ones, on 6 filings against 3. The lint trap or vent is at 5% against 3%, on 6 filings against 3. Both are 2-point gaps, both hold their direction in documents, and both are small enough — nine filings apiece between the two columns — to deserve only modest weight.

The one row leaning the other way#

The motor is at 4% of the Maytag reports against 2% of the Whirlpool ones, on 4 filings against 2. It is the only component where the Maytag record leads by more than a single point, and it is six documents in total.

Below it the table stops separating anything. The heating element splits 4% for Maytag against 3% for Whirlpool, on 4 filings against 3, inside the noise band. The thermostat or sensor splits 1% against 2%, on 1 against 2, also noise. The water valve or line shows no measured difference at all, at 1% in each column on one filing per side.

A peaked record against a level one#

Whirlpool's list has a definite top. The control board takes 14%, the wiring or power cord 8%, and the two together stand on 25 of its 115 filings. After them it falls to the drain pump or hose and lint trap or vent at 5%, then a tail of five components at 3% or less.

Maytag's list barely rises. The control board at 8% is its highest point, three components tie at 4%, two more at 3%, and two at 1%. Nothing in it separates from the rest, and its leader is a little over half the height of Whirlpool's.

Because the corpora are nearly the same size, that contrast in shape is a real feature of the records rather than an artifact of how they were divided — which is not true of most shape comparisons in this class.

Ten components against eight#

Whirlpool's record names ten components and Maytag's eight, with Whirlpool's extras being a drive belt and an igniter at one filing each. In corpora this close in size, a two-component difference at the very bottom of the list is not worth reading as anything.

The practical read#

Both records begin at the control board, and on the Whirlpool side that is by some distance the strongest concentration on the page: 16 of its 115 reports. A Whirlpool washer's shortlist continues with the wiring or power cord on 9 filings, then the drain pump or hose and lint trap or vent on 6 each.

A Maytag washer's shortlist has no strong second item. After the control board on 8 filings, the heating element, motor and wiring or power cord sit level at 4%, with the drain pump or hose and lint trap or vent behind them at 3%.

Neither list ranks the brands, and no arithmetic in this database can. What it can do — because these two corpora are matched in size and in window — is show that the two sets of complaints really are shaped differently.

Maytag vs Whirlpool 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. Whirlpool: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Whirlpool washers, 2011-2026, n=115. 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.

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.

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

Whirlpool washers: the reported component split#

Whirlpool washers — every share in this table is a share of: CPSC SaferProducts incident reports for Whirlpool washers, 2011-2026, n=115.

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.