IP65 vs IP27
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP65 and IP27 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 6 vs 2) and liquid protection (level 5 vs 7). IP65 is rated for dust-tight and water jets (6.3 mm nozzle), while IP27 provides > 12.5 mm — finger and temporary immersion (up to 1 m).
IP65 is dust-tight and resists low-pressure water jets (6.3 mm nozzle, 30 kPa). It is the most common standard for fully exposed outdoor electronics such as lighting, cameras, and EV chargers.
The IP27 classification guarantees protection against solid objects larger than 12.5 mm and protection against the effects of temporary immersion in water. Ingress of water in quantities causing harmful effects shall not be possible.. It is an IEC 60529 ingress protection code combining first-digit (solid) level 2 with second-digit (liquid) level 7.
Detailed comparison
The stronger rating on each row is highlighted in emerald.
Solid protection (first digit)
IP65
6 — Dust-Tight
IP27
2 — > 12.5 mm — Finger
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP65
5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
IP27
7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
Dust-tight
IP65
Yes
IP27
No
Water-jet resistant
IP65
Yes
IP27
Yes
Submersible
IP65
No
IP27
Yes
Outdoor suitable
IP65
Yes
IP27
Yes
The exact difference (IP65 vs IP27)
Solid protection
IP65
Level 6 — Dust-Tight
IP27
Level 2 — > 12.5 mm — Finger
IP65 provides "Dust-Tight" (level 6), while IP27 provides "> 12.5 mm — Finger" (level 2). IP65 is 4 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP65
Level 5 — Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)
IP27
Level 7 — Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)
IP65 handles 30 kPa (Water Jets (6.3 mm nozzle)), while IP27 handles Hydrostatic ~10 kPa at 1 m (Temporary Immersion (up to 1 m)). IP27 provides 2 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP65 offers higher overall protection than IP27. Choose IP65 for harsher environments; IP27 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.