IP57 vs IP13
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP57 and IP13 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 5 vs 1) and liquid protection (level 7 vs 3). IP57 is rated for dust-protected and temporary immersion (up to 1 m), while IP13 provides > 50 mm — back of hand and spraying water (up to 60°).
IP57 is dust-protected and tolerates temporary immersion up to 1 m for 30 minutes. Useful for portable devices that may be dropped in shallow water.
The IP13 rating offers protection against solid objects larger than 50 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 1 with second-digit (liquid) level 3.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP57
5 — Dust-Protected
IP13
1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP57
7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
IP13
3 — Spraying Water (up to 60°)
Dust-tight
IP57
Limited
IP13
No
Water-jet resistant
IP57
Yes
IP13
No
Submersible
IP57
Yes
IP13
No
Outdoor suitable
IP57
Yes
IP13
No
The exact difference (IP57 vs IP13)
Solid protection
IP57
Level 5 — Dust-Protected
IP13
Level 1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP57 provides "Dust-Protected" (level 5), while IP13 provides "> 50 mm — Back of Hand" (level 1). IP57 is 4 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP57
Level 7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
IP13
Level 3 — Spraying Water (up to 60°)
IP57 handles Hydrostatic ~10 kPa at 1 m (Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)), while IP13 handles 80 kPa (tube) / 50 kPa (nozzle) (Spraying Water (up to 60°)). IP57 provides 4 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP57 offers higher overall protection than IP13. Choose IP57 for harsher environments; IP13 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.