IP25 vs IPX4
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP25 and IPX4 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 2 vs 0) and liquid protection (level 5 vs 4). IP25 is rated for > 12.5 mm — finger and water jets (6.3 mm nozzle), while IPX4 provides no protection and splashing water (all directions).
IP25 is an ingress protection code that ensures protection against solid objects larger than 12.5 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 2 with second-digit (liquid) level 5.
IPX4 (solid protection not specified) resists splashing water from any direction. A common minimum for bathroom and outdoor-covered appliances where dust sealing is not required.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP25
2 — > 12.5 mm — Finger
IPX4
0 — No Protection
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP25
5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
IPX4
4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
Dust-tight
IP25
No
IPX4
No
Water-jet resistant
IP25
Yes
IPX4
No
Submersible
IP25
No
IPX4
No
Outdoor suitable
IP25
Yes
IPX4
Yes
The exact difference (IP25 vs IPX4)
Solid protection
IP25
Level 2 — > 12.5 mm — Finger
IPX4
Level 0 — No Protection
IP25 provides "> 12.5 mm — Finger" (level 2), while IPX4 provides "No Protection" (level 0). IP25 is 2 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP25
Level 5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
IPX4
Level 4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
IP25 handles 30 kPa (Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)), while IPX4 handles 50–100 kPa (Splashing Water (all directions)). IP25 provides 1 level more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP25 offers higher overall protection than IPX4. Choose IP25 for harsher environments; IPX4 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.