IP13 vs IP57
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP13 and IP57 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 1 vs 5) and liquid protection (level 3 vs 7). IP13 is rated for > 50 mm — back of hand and spraying water (up to 60°), while IP57 provides dust-protected and temporary immersion (up to 1 m).
The IP13 rating offers protection against solid objects larger than 50 mm and protection against spraying water. Water sprayed at an angle up to 60° on either side of the vertical shall have no harmful effects.. It is an IEC 60529 ingress protection code combining first-digit (solid) level 1 with second-digit (liquid) level 3.
IP57 is dust-protected and tolerates temporary immersion up to 1 m for 30 minutes. Useful for portable devices that may be dropped in shallow water.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP13
1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP57
5 — Dust-Protected
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP13
3 — Spraying Water (up to 60°)
IP57
7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
Dust-tight
IP13
No
IP57
Limited
Water-jet resistant
IP13
No
IP57
Yes
Submersible
IP13
No
IP57
Yes
Outdoor suitable
IP13
No
IP57
Yes
The exact difference (IP13 vs IP57)
Solid protection
IP13
Level 1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP57
Level 5 — Dust-Protected
IP13 provides "> 50 mm — Back of Hand" (level 1), while IP57 provides "Dust-Protected" (level 5). IP57 is 4 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP13
Level 3 — Spraying Water (up to 60°)
IP57
Level 7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
IP13 handles 80 kPa (tube) / 50 kPa (nozzle) (Spraying Water (up to 60°)), while IP57 handles Hydrostatic ~10 kPa at 1 m (Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)). IP57 provides 4 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP57 offers higher overall protection than IP13. Choose IP57 for harsher environments; IP13 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.