IP02 vs IP06
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP02 and IP06 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in liquid protection (level 2 vs 6). IP02 is rated for no protection and dripping water at 15° tilt, while IP06 provides no protection and powerful water jets (12.5 mm nozzle).
Engineered to deliver no protection against solid objects and protection against vertically falling drops of water when the enclosure is tilted up to 15° from its normal position.. Classified as IEC 60529 ingress protection code IP02, it pairs solid level 0 with liquid level 2.
With IP06, an enclosure receives no protection against solid objects and protection against powerful water jets. Water projected in powerful jets by a 12.5 mm nozzle against the enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects.. It is an IEC 60529 ingress protection code combining first-digit (solid) level 0 with second-digit (liquid) level 6.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP02
0 — No Protection
IP06
0 — No Protection
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP02
2 — Dripping Water at 15° Tilt
IP06
6 — Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)
Dust-tight
IP02
No
IP06
No
Water-jet resistant
IP02
No
IP06
Yes
Submersible
IP02
No
IP06
No
Outdoor suitable
IP02
No
IP06
Yes
The exact difference (IP02 vs IP06)
Solid protection
IP02
Level 0 — No Protection
IP06
Level 0 — No Protection
Both IP02 and IP06 share the same solid protection: No Protection.
Liquid protection
IP02
Level 2 — Dripping Water at 15° Tilt
IP06
Level 6 — Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)
IP02 handles 0.3 mm/min drip rate (Dripping Water at 15° Tilt), while IP06 handles 100 kPa (Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)). IP06 provides 4 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP06 offers higher overall protection than IP02. Choose IP06 for harsher environments; IP02 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.