IP39K vs IP55
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP39K and IP55 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 3 vs 5) and liquid protection (level 9K vs 5). IP39K is rated for > 2.5 mm — tool / wire and high-pressure, high-temp water jets, while IP55 provides dust-protected and water jets (6.3 mm nozzle).
IP39K is an ingress protection code that ensures protection against solid objects larger than 2.5 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 3 with second-digit (liquid) level 9K.
IP55 is dust-protected and resists low-pressure water jets (6.3 mm nozzle, 30 kPa). A popular industrial rating for equipment exposed to dust and directed water spray but not immersion.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP39K
3 — > 2.5 mm — Tool / Wire
IP55
5 — Dust-Protected
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP39K
9 — High-Pressure, High-Temp Water Jets
IP55
5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
Dust-tight
IP39K
No
IP55
Limited
Water-jet resistant
IP39K
Yes
IP55
Yes
Submersible
IP39K
Yes
IP55
No
Outdoor suitable
IP39K
Yes
IP55
Yes
The exact difference (IP39K vs IP55)
Solid protection
IP39K
Level 3 — > 2.5 mm — Tool / Wire
IP55
Level 5 — Dust-Protected
IP39K provides "> 2.5 mm — Tool / Wire" (level 3), while IP55 provides "Dust-Protected" (level 5). IP55 is 2 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP39K
Level 9 — High-Pressure, High-Temp Water Jets
IP55
Level 5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
IP39K handles 8–10 MPa (High-Pressure, High-Temp Water Jets), while IP55 handles 30 kPa (Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)). IP39K provides 4 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP39K offers higher overall protection than IP55. Choose IP39K for harsher environments; IP55 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.