IP13 vs IP66
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP13 and IP66 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 1 vs 6) and liquid protection (level 3 vs 6). IP13 is rated for > 50 mm — back of hand and spraying water (up to 60°), while IP66 provides dust-tight and powerful water jets (12.5 mm nozzle).
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.
IP66 is dust-tight and resists powerful water jets (12.5 mm nozzle, 100 kPa). A robust outdoor rating for equipment exposed to heavy rain, storms, or directed high-pressure hosing (but not high-pressure washdown).
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP13
1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP66
6 — Dust-Tight
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP13
3 — Spraying Water (up to 60°)
IP66
6 — Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)
Dust-tight
IP13
No
IP66
Yes
Water-jet resistant
IP13
No
IP66
Yes
Submersible
IP13
No
IP66
No
Outdoor suitable
IP13
No
IP66
Yes
The exact difference (IP13 vs IP66)
Solid protection
IP13
Level 1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP66
Level 6 — Dust-Tight
IP13 provides "> 50 mm — Back of Hand" (level 1), while IP66 provides "Dust-Tight" (level 6). IP66 is 5 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP13
Level 3 — Spraying Water (up to 60°)
IP66
Level 6 — Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)
IP13 handles 80 kPa (tube) / 50 kPa (nozzle) (Spraying Water (up to 60°)), while IP66 handles 100 kPa (Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)). IP66 provides 3 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP66 offers higher overall protection than IP13. Choose IP66 for harsher environments; IP13 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.