IP32 vs IP42
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP32 and IP42 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 3 vs 4). IP32 is rated for > 2.5 mm — tool / wire and dripping water at 15° tilt, while IP42 provides > 1 mm — small wires and dripping water at 15° tilt.
Under IEC 60529, IP32 specifies protection against solid objects larger than 2.5 mm and protection against vertically falling drops of water when the enclosure is tilted up to 15° from its normal position.. It is an IEC 60529 ingress protection code combining first-digit (solid) level 3 with second-digit (liquid) level 2.
With IP42, an enclosure receives protection against solid objects larger than 1.0 mm and protection against vertically falling drops of water when the enclosure is tilted up to 15° from its normal position.. It is an IEC 60529 ingress protection code combining first-digit (solid) level 4 with second-digit (liquid) level 2.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP32
3 — > 2.5 mm — Tool / Wire
IP42
4 — > 1 mm — Small Wires
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP32
2 — Dripping Water at 15° Tilt
IP42
2 — Dripping Water at 15° Tilt
Dust-tight
IP32
No
IP42
No
Water-jet resistant
IP32
No
IP42
No
Submersible
IP32
No
IP42
No
Outdoor suitable
IP32
No
IP42
No
The exact difference (IP32 vs IP42)
Solid protection
IP32
Level 3 — > 2.5 mm — Tool / Wire
IP42
Level 4 — > 1 mm — Small Wires
IP32 provides "> 2.5 mm — Tool / Wire" (level 3), while IP42 provides "> 1 mm — Small Wires" (level 4). IP42 is 1 level higher.
Liquid protection
IP32
Level 2 — Dripping Water at 15° Tilt
IP42
Level 2 — Dripping Water at 15° Tilt
Both IP32 and IP42 share the same liquid protection: Dripping Water at 15° Tilt.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP42 offers higher overall protection than IP32. Choose IP42 for harsher environments; IP32 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.