IP23 vs IPX4
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP23 and IPX4 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 2 vs 0) and liquid protection (level 3 vs 4). IP23 is rated for > 12.5 mm — finger and spraying water (up to 60°), while IPX4 provides no protection and splashing water (all directions).
Under IEC 60529, IP23 specifies protection against solid objects larger than 12.5 mm and protection against spraying water. Water sprayed at an angle up to 60° on either side of the vertical shall have no harmful effects.. It is an IEC 60529 ingress protection code combining first-digit (solid) level 2 with second-digit (liquid) level 3.
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)
IP23
2 — > 12.5 mm — Finger
IPX4
0 — No Protection
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP23
3 — Spraying Water (up to 60°)
IPX4
4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
Dust-tight
IP23
No
IPX4
No
Water-jet resistant
IP23
No
IPX4
No
Submersible
IP23
No
IPX4
No
Outdoor suitable
IP23
No
IPX4
Yes
The exact difference (IP23 vs IPX4)
Solid protection
IP23
Level 2 — > 12.5 mm — Finger
IPX4
Level 0 — No Protection
IP23 provides "> 12.5 mm — Finger" (level 2), while IPX4 provides "No Protection" (level 0). IP23 is 2 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP23
Level 3 — Spraying Water (up to 60°)
IPX4
Level 4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
IP23 handles 80 kPa (tube) / 50 kPa (nozzle) (Spraying Water (up to 60°)), while IPX4 handles 50–100 kPa (Splashing Water (all directions)). IPX4 provides 1 level more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP23 offers higher overall protection than IPX4. Choose IP23 for harsher environments; IPX4 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.