IP66 vs IP13
Head-to-head comparison of two IEC 60529 ingress protection ratings.
IP66 and IP13 are both IEC 60529 ingress protection codes, but they differ in solid-object protection (level 6 vs 1) and liquid protection (level 6 vs 3). IP66 is rated for dust-tight and powerful water jets (12.5 mm nozzle), while IP13 provides > 50 mm — back of hand and spraying water (up to 60°).
IP66 is dust-tight and resists powerful water jets (12.5 mm nozzle, 100 kPa). A robust outdoor rating for equipment exposed to heavy rain, storms, or directed high-pressure hosing (but not high-pressure washdown).
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)
IP66
6 — Dust-Tight
IP13
1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
Liquid protection (second digit)
IP66
6 — Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)
IP13
3 — Spraying Water (up to 60°)
Dust-tight
IP66
Yes
IP13
No
Water-jet resistant
IP66
Yes
IP13
No
Submersible
IP66
No
IP13
No
Outdoor suitable
IP66
Yes
IP13
No
The exact difference (IP66 vs IP13)
Solid protection
IP66
Level 6 — Dust-Tight
IP13
Level 1 — > 50 mm — Back of Hand
IP66 provides "Dust-Tight" (level 6), while IP13 provides "> 50 mm — Back of Hand" (level 1). IP66 is 5 levels higher.
Liquid protection
IP66
Level 6 — Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)
IP13
Level 3 — Spraying Water (up to 60°)
IP66 handles 100 kPa (Powerful Water Jets (12.5 mm nozzle)), while IP13 handles 80 kPa (tube) / 50 kPa (nozzle) (Spraying Water (up to 60°)). IP66 provides 3 levels more liquid protection.
NEMA equivalents
No direct NEMA equivalent.
Recommendation
IP66 offers higher overall protection than IP13. Choose IP66 for harsher environments; IP13 may suffice for milder conditions and can be more cost-effective.