IP17 vs IP55
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP17 and IP55 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 1 vs 5) and liquid protection (level 7 vs 5). IP17 is rated for > 50 mm — back of hand and temporary immersion (up to 1 m), while IP55 provides dust-protected and water jets (6.3 mm nozzle).
Built to withstand protection against solid objects larger than 50 mm and protection against the effects of temporary immersion in water. Ingress of water in quantities causing harmful effects shall not be possible.. Classified as IEC 60529 ingress protection code IP17, it pairs solid level 1 with liquid level 7.
IP55 is dust-protected and resists low-pressure water jets (6.3 mm nozzle, 30 kPa). A popular industrial rating for equipment exposed to dust and directed water spray but not immersion.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP17
1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP55
5 — Dust-Protected
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP17
7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
IP55
5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
Dust-tight
IP17
No
IP55
Limited
Water-jet resistant
IP17
Yes
IP55
Yes
Submersible
IP17
Yes
IP55
No
Outdoor suitable
IP17
Yes
IP55
Yes
The exact difference (IP17 vs IP55)
Solid protection
IP17
Level 1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP55
Level 5 — Dust-Protected
IP17 provides "> 50 mm — Back of Hand" (level 1), while IP55 provides "Dust-Protected" (level 5). IP55 is 4 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP17
Level 7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
IP55
Level 5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
IP17 handles Hydrostatic ~10 kPa at 1 m (Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)), while IP55 handles 30 kPa (Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)). IP17 provides 2 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP55 offers higher overall protection than IP17. Choose IP55 for harsher environments; IP17 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.