IP15 vs IP64
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP15 and IP64 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 1 vs 6) and liquid protection (level 5 vs 4). IP15 is rated for > 50 mm — back of hand and water jets (6.3 mm nozzle), while IP64 provides dust-tight and splashing water (all directions).
With IP15, an enclosure receives protection against solid objects larger than 50 mm and protection against water jets. Water projected by a 6.3 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 1 with second-digit (liquid) level 5.
IP64 is dust-tight and resists splashing water from any direction. A solid outdoor-covered rating combining complete dust exclusion with splash tolerance, sitting between IP65 (jets) and IP54 (dust-protected).
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP15
1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP64
6 — Dust-Tight
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP15
5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
IP64
4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
Dust-tight
IP15
No
IP64
Yes
Water-jet resistant
IP15
Yes
IP64
No
Submersible
IP15
No
IP64
No
Outdoor suitable
IP15
Yes
IP64
Yes
The exact difference (IP15 vs IP64)
Solid protection
IP15
Level 1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP64
Level 6 — Dust-Tight
IP15 provides "> 50 mm — Back of Hand" (level 1), while IP64 provides "Dust-Tight" (level 6). IP64 is 5 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP15
Level 5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
IP64
Level 4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
IP15 handles 30 kPa (Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)), while IP64 handles 50–100 kPa (Splashing Water (all directions)). IP15 provides 1 level more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP64 offers higher overall protection than IP15. Choose IP64 for harsher environments; IP15 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.