IP28 vs IPX5
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP28 and IPX5 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 2 vs 0) and liquid protection (level 8 vs 5). IP28 is rated for > 12.5 mm — finger and continuous immersion (manufacturer-specified), while IPX5 provides no protection and water jets (6.3 mm nozzle).
Specified under IEC 60529, IP28 denotes protection against solid objects larger than 12.5 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 2 with second-digit (liquid) level 8.
IPX5 resists low-pressure water jets (6.3 mm nozzle, 30 kPa) with solid protection not specified. Used where water-jet resistance matters more than dust sealing.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP28
2 — > 12.5 mm — Finger
IPX5
0 — No Protection
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP28
8 — Continuous Immersion (manufacturer-specified)
IPX5
5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
Dust-tight
IP28
No
IPX5
No
Water-jet resistant
IP28
Yes
IPX5
Yes
Submersible
IP28
Yes
IPX5
No
Outdoor suitable
IP28
Yes
IPX5
Yes
The exact difference (IP28 vs IPX5)
Solid protection
IP28
Level 2 — > 12.5 mm — Finger
IPX5
Level 0 — No Protection
IP28 provides "> 12.5 mm — Finger" (level 2), while IPX5 provides "No Protection" (level 0). IP28 is 2 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP28
Level 8 — Continuous Immersion (manufacturer-specified)
IPX5
Level 5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
IP28 handles Specified by manufacturer (Continuous Immersion (manufacturer-specified)), while IPX5 handles 30 kPa (Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)). IP28 provides 3 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP28 offers higher overall protection than IPX5. Choose IP28 for harsher environments; IPX5 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.