IP64 vs IP15
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP64 and IP15 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 6 vs 1) and liquid protection (level 4 vs 5). IP64 is rated for dust-tight and splashing water (all directions), while IP15 provides > 50 mm — back of hand and water jets (6.3 mm nozzle).
IP64 is dust-tight and resists splashing water from any direction. A solid outdoor-covered rating combining complete dust exclusion with splash tolerance, sitting between IP65 (jets) and IP54 (dust-protected).
With IP15, an enclosure receives protection against solid objects larger than 50 mm and protection against water jets. Water projected by a 6.3 mm nozzle 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 5.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP64
6 — Dust-Tight
IP15
1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP64
4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
IP15
5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
Dust-tight
IP64
Yes
IP15
No
Water-jet resistant
IP64
No
IP15
Yes
Submersible
IP64
No
IP15
No
Outdoor suitable
IP64
Yes
IP15
Yes
The exact difference (IP64 vs IP15)
Solid protection
IP64
Level 6 — Dust-Tight
IP15
Level 1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP64 provides "Dust-Tight" (level 6), while IP15 provides "> 50 mm — Back of Hand" (level 1). IP64 is 5 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP64
Level 4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
IP15
Level 5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
IP64 handles 50–100 kPa (Splashing Water (all directions)), while IP15 handles 30 kPa (Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)). IP15 provides 1 level more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP64 offers higher overall protection than IP15. Choose IP64 for harsher environments; IP15 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.