IP64 vs IP52
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP64 and IP52 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 6 vs 5) and liquid protection (level 4 vs 2). IP64 is rated for dust-tight and splashing water (all directions), while IP52 provides dust-protected and dripping water at 15° tilt.
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).
IP52 is an ingress protection code that ensures dust-protected (limited ingress, no harmful deposit) 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 5 with second-digit (liquid) level 2.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP64
6 — Dust-Tight
IP52
5 — Dust-Protected
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP64
4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
IP52
2 — Dripping Water at 15° Tilt
Dust-tight
IP64
Yes
IP52
Limited
Water-jet resistant
IP64
No
IP52
No
Submersible
IP64
No
IP52
No
Outdoor suitable
IP64
Yes
IP52
No
The exact difference (IP64 vs IP52)
Solid protection
IP64
Level 6 — Dust-Tight
IP52
Level 5 — Dust-Protected
IP64 provides "Dust-Tight" (level 6), while IP52 provides "Dust-Protected" (level 5). IP64 is 1 level higher.
Liquid protection
IP64
Level 4 — Splashing Water (all directions)
IP52
Level 2 — Dripping Water at 15° Tilt
IP64 handles 50–100 kPa (Splashing Water (all directions)), while IP52 handles 0.3 mm/min drip rate (Dripping Water at 15° Tilt). IP64 provides 2 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP64 offers higher overall protection than IP52. Choose IP64 for harsher environments; IP52 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.