IP19K vs IPX6
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP19K and IPX6 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 1 vs 0) and liquid protection (level 9K vs 6). IP19K is rated for > 50 mm — back of hand and high-pressure, high-temp water jets, while IPX6 provides no protection and powerful water jets (12.5 mm nozzle).
Under IEC 60529, IP19K specifies protection against solid objects larger than 50 mm and resistance to high-pressure (8–10 MPa), high-temperature (80 °C) water jets. It is an IEC 60529 ingress protection code combining first-digit (solid) level 1 with second-digit (liquid) level 9K.
IPX6 resists powerful water jets (12.5 mm nozzle, 100 kPa) with solid protection not specified. Suitable for heavy-rain or hose-exposed equipment where dust sealing is not required.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP19K
1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IPX6
0 — No Protection
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP19K
9 — High-Pressure, High-Temp Water Jets
IPX6
6 — Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)
Dust-tight
IP19K
No
IPX6
No
Water-jet resistant
IP19K
Yes
IPX6
Yes
Submersible
IP19K
Yes
IPX6
No
Outdoor suitable
IP19K
Yes
IPX6
Yes
The exact difference (IP19K vs IPX6)
Solid protection
IP19K
Level 1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IPX6
Level 0 — No Protection
IP19K provides "> 50 mm — Back of Hand" (level 1), while IPX6 provides "No Protection" (level 0). IP19K is 1 level higher.
Liquid protection
IP19K
Level 9 — High-Pressure, High-Temp Water Jets
IPX6
Level 6 — Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)
IP19K handles 8–10 MPa (High-Pressure, High-Temp Water Jets), while IPX6 handles 100 kPa (Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)). IP19K provides 3 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP19K offers higher overall protection than IPX6. Choose IP19K for harsher environments; IPX6 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.