IP17 vs IPX4
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP17 and IPX4 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 1 vs 0) and liquid protection (level 7 vs 4). IP17 is rated for > 50 mm — back of hand and temporary immersion (up to 1 m), while IPX4 provides no protection and splashing water (all directions).
Built to withstand protection against solid objects larger than 50 mm and protection against the effects of temporary immersion in water. Ingress of water in quantities causing harmful effects shall not be possible.. Classified as IEC 60529 ingress protection code IP17, it pairs solid level 1 with liquid level 7.
IPX4 (solid protection not specified) resists splashing water from any direction. A common minimum for bathroom and outdoor-covered appliances where dust sealing is not required.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP17
1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IPX4
0 — No Protection
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP17
7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
IPX4
4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
Dust-tight
IP17
No
IPX4
No
Water-jet resistant
IP17
Yes
IPX4
No
Submersible
IP17
Yes
IPX4
No
Outdoor suitable
IP17
Yes
IPX4
Yes
The exact difference (IP17 vs IPX4)
Solid protection
IP17
Level 1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IPX4
Level 0 — No Protection
IP17 provides "> 50 mm — Back of Hand" (level 1), while IPX4 provides "No Protection" (level 0). IP17 is 1 level higher.
Liquid protection
IP17
Level 7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
IPX4
Level 4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
IP17 handles Hydrostatic ~10 kPa at 1 m (Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)), while IPX4 handles 50–100 kPa (Splashing Water (all directions)). IP17 provides 3 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP17 offers higher overall protection than IPX4. Choose IP17 for harsher environments; IPX4 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.