IP26 vs IP57
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP26 and IP57 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 2 vs 5) and liquid protection (level 6 vs 7). IP26 is rated for > 12.5 mm — finger and powerful water jets (12.5 mm nozzle), while IP57 provides dust-protected and temporary immersion (up to 1 m).
Built to withstand protection against solid objects larger than 12.5 mm and protection against powerful water jets. Water projected in powerful jets by a 12.5 mm nozzle against the enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects.. Classified as IEC 60529 ingress protection code IP26, it pairs solid level 2 with liquid level 6.
IP57 is dust-protected and tolerates temporary immersion up to 1 m for 30 minutes. Useful for portable devices that may be dropped in shallow water.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP26
2 — > 12.5 mm — Finger
IP57
5 — Dust-Protected
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP26
6 — Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)
IP57
7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
Dust-tight
IP26
No
IP57
Limited
Water-jet resistant
IP26
Yes
IP57
Yes
Submersible
IP26
No
IP57
Yes
Outdoor suitable
IP26
Yes
IP57
Yes
The exact difference (IP26 vs IP57)
Solid protection
IP26
Level 2 — > 12.5 mm — Finger
IP57
Level 5 — Dust-Protected
IP26 provides "> 12.5 mm — Finger" (level 2), while IP57 provides "Dust-Protected" (level 5). IP57 is 3 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP26
Level 6 — Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)
IP57
Level 7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
IP26 handles 100 kPa (Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)), while IP57 handles Hydrostatic ~10 kPa at 1 m (Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)). IP57 provides 1 level more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP57 offers higher overall protection than IP26. Choose IP57 for harsher environments; IP26 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.