IP14 vs IP55
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP14 and IP55 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 1 vs 5) and liquid protection (level 4 vs 5). IP14 is rated for > 50 mm — back of hand and splashing water (all directions), while IP55 provides dust-protected and water jets (6.3 mm nozzle).
Under IEC 60529, IP14 specifies protection against solid objects larger than 50 mm and protection against splashing water. Water splashed against the enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects.. It is an IEC 60529 ingress protection code combining first-digit (solid) level 1 with second-digit (liquid) level 4.
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)
IP14
1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP55
5 — Dust-Protected
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP14
4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
IP55
5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
Dust-tight
IP14
No
IP55
Limited
Water-jet resistant
IP14
No
IP55
Yes
Submersible
IP14
No
IP55
No
Outdoor suitable
IP14
Yes
IP55
Yes
The exact difference (IP14 vs IP55)
Solid protection
IP14
Level 1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP55
Level 5 — Dust-Protected
IP14 provides "> 50 mm — Back of Hand" (level 1), while IP55 provides "Dust-Protected" (level 5). IP55 is 4 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP14
Level 4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
IP55
Level 5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
IP14 handles 50–100 kPa (Splashing Water (all directions)), while IP55 handles 30 kPa (Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)). IP55 provides 1 level more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP55 offers higher overall protection than IP14. Choose IP55 for harsher environments; IP14 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.