IP18 vs IP30
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP18 and IP30 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 1 vs 3) and liquid protection (level 8 vs 0). IP18 is rated for > 50 mm — back of hand and continuous immersion (manufacturer-specified), while IP30 provides > 2.5 mm — tool / wire and no protection.
The IP18 classification guarantees protection against solid objects larger than 50 mm and protection against the effects of continuous immersion in water under conditions specified by the manufacturer.. It is an IEC 60529 ingress protection code combining first-digit (solid) level 1 with second-digit (liquid) level 8.
IP30 protects against tools and 2.5 mm solid objects but offers no water protection. A basic indoor rating for equipment in dry, low-dust environments where only tool-access protection is required.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP18
1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP30
3 — > 2.5 mm — Tool / Wire
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP18
8 — Continuous Immersion (manufacturer-specified)
IP30
0 — No Protection
Dust-tight
IP18
No
IP30
No
Water-jet resistant
IP18
Yes
IP30
No
Submersible
IP18
Yes
IP30
No
Outdoor suitable
IP18
Yes
IP30
No
The exact difference (IP18 vs IP30)
Solid protection
IP18
Level 1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP30
Level 3 — > 2.5 mm — Tool / Wire
IP18 provides "> 50 mm — Back of Hand" (level 1), while IP30 provides "> 2.5 mm — Tool / Wire" (level 3). IP30 is 2 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP18
Level 8 — Continuous Immersion (manufacturer-specified)
IP30
Level 0 — No Protection
IP18 provides "Continuous Immersion (manufacturer-specified)" (level 8), while IP30 provides "No Protection" (level 0). IP18 is 8 levels higher.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP18 offers higher overall protection than IP30. Choose IP18 for harsher environments; IP30 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.