IP61 vs IPX8
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP61 and IPX8 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 6 vs 0) and liquid protection (level 1 vs 8). IP61 is rated for dust-tight and vertically dripping water, while IPX8 provides no protection and continuous immersion (manufacturer-specified).
IP61 is an ingress protection code that ensures dust-tight (no ingress of dust) and protection against vertically falling drops of water. Dripping water shall have no harmful effects.. It is an IEC 60529 ingress protection code combining first-digit (solid) level 6 with second-digit (liquid) level 1.
IPX8 protects against continuous immersion under manufacturer-specified conditions (depth and duration), with solid protection not specified. The standard for submersible consumer electronics.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP61
6 — Dust-Tight
IPX8
0 — No Protection
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP61
1 — Vertically Dripping Water
IPX8
8 — Continuous Immersion (manufacturer-specified)
Dust-tight
IP61
Yes
IPX8
No
Water-jet resistant
IP61
No
IPX8
Yes
Submersible
IP61
No
IPX8
Yes
Outdoor suitable
IP61
No
IPX8
Yes
The exact difference (IP61 vs IPX8)
Solid protection
IP61
Level 6 — Dust-Tight
IPX8
Level 0 — No Protection
IP61 provides "Dust-Tight" (level 6), while IPX8 provides "No Protection" (level 0). IP61 is 6 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP61
Level 1 — Vertically Dripping Water
IPX8
Level 8 — Continuous Immersion (manufacturer-specified)
IP61 handles 0.1 mm/min drip rate (Vertically Dripping Water), while IPX8 handles Specified by manufacturer (Continuous Immersion (manufacturer-specified)). IPX8 provides 7 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IPX8 offers higher overall protection than IP61. Choose IPX8 for harsher environments; IP61 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.