EN 388 vs ANSI Cut Levels Explained

Australian buyers see European marked and American marked gloves side by side, because this market imports from both. The two systems measure cut resistance with the same family of straight blade test, but they report it on different scales, and only one of them is legally required before a glove reaches the shelf. This guide sets out what each marking actually tells you, how the numbers relate, and how to specify a glove without guessing.

How to read an EN 388 marking, position by position

EN 388:2016+A1:2018 prints six characters under the hammer pictogram. They are six separate test results, not a single score, so a glove with a high first character is not automatically a better cut glove. Read them left to right.

Position one is abrasion, rated 1 to 4. Position two is the coup test cut result, rated 1 to 5, where a circular blade rotates across the sample under a fixed load. Position three is tear, rated 1 to 4. Position four is puncture, rated 1 to 4, using a blunt stylus. Position five is the TDM cut result to ISO 13997, reported as a letter from A to F. Position six is impact, marked P if the glove passed and simply omitted if impact was not tested.

An omitted impact character means the glove was not submitted for that test. It does not mean the glove failed it, and it does not mean the glove offers no protection against a knock. If impact matters on your task, look for the P, or look for a model whose product page states a separate impact rating.

The TDM letter, and why an X appears in the coup test position

The coup test in position two uses a rotating circular blade. Modern cut resistant yarns contain glass, steel or high performance fibres that blunt that blade as the test runs, which makes the result unreliable. When the blade dulls beyond the permitted limit, the coup test result is invalidated and an X is printed in position two instead of a number.

An X in position two is therefore not a weakness. It is very often a sign that the glove is built from a genuinely aggressive cut resistant material. In that situation the TDM letter in position five is the number that counts, because the ISO 13997 straight blade method draws a fresh blade across the sample under increasing load and reports the force in newtons needed to cut through at twenty millimetres of travel.

What ANSI/ISEA 105 covers

ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 is the North American classification for hand protection performance. Its cut test is ASTM F2992, a straight blade method in the same family as ISO 13997, and it reports the result as a load in grams rather than in newtons. That result is placed into one of nine bands, A1 through A9.

ANSI/ISEA 105 also has classification scales for abrasion, puncture and other properties, but it does not include a tear test. Two things follow from that. Cut resistance is comparable in principle between the two systems, because the underlying test method is similar. Tear resistance is not, because there is no ANSI figure to compare against the EN one.

EN 388 cut levels A to F

The TDM letter is the force a fresh blade needs in order to cut through the material. Higher letters need more force.

The letter appears in position five of the six character EN 388 marking.

ANSI/ISEA 105-2016 cut levels A1 to A9

The ANSI bands run in grams, and the nine steps are narrower than the six EN letters, particularly at the top of the scale where heavy cut protection is specified.

Nine bands rather than six, which is why an ANSI level cannot be read straight across to an EN letter.

Approximate cross reference

Because both scales now rest on the same family of straight blade test, a comparison between them is meaningful in a way it was not under the older standards. It is still only a comparison. The bands were drawn independently, so an EN letter lands inside an ANSI band rather than on top of it, and a glove tested twice can sit near the top of one band and near the bottom of another.

This cross reference is approximate. The bands do not line up exactly, and a glove should be specified against the standard your own paperwork uses rather than converted from the other one.

Which one should I specify

Specify against the standard your own documentation uses. If your safety management system, your customer or your parent company records hand protection as A4, ask for an ANSI rated glove and record the ANSI figure. If your records are built around EN 388, ask for the six character marking and record that. Converting a rating on paper introduces an error that nobody downstream can see, and it is the converted figure that ends up in the audit file.

Where you have a free choice, the most useful position for a buyer is a glove that carries a full EN test panel and also carries an ANSI rating where you need one. You then have the complete mechanical profile from the EN marking and the single figure your North American paperwork expects, from the same certified product.

Mandatory testing against voluntary rating

In the European Union, CE marking under PPE Regulation 2016/425 is legally required before a glove can be placed on the market. For Category II and Category III gloves that means independent assessment by a Notified Body, and it means the full EN 388 mechanical panel is tested and reported: abrasion, cut, tear and puncture, all four, whether or not the result is flattering.

ANSI/ISEA 105 is a voluntary consensus standard. No body requires a glove to be tested before it is sold in North America, and as noted above the standard contains no tear test at all.

The practical consequence is about disclosure, not about quality. An EN certified glove publishes its weaker properties alongside its stronger ones, because it has no choice. A glove marketed on a single ANSI cut level may be excellent, but the other properties may simply never have been measured, so their absence tells you nothing either way. ANSI ratings are exactly what a North American compliance file needs, and CE marking on its own does not satisfy every jurisdiction. The two systems are answers to different questions, and neither one makes the other redundant.

For the range we supply, the accurate statement is this: every glove is EN certified, and selected lines additionally carry ANSI ratings. We do not claim an ANSI rating for models that have not been tested to it.

The Australian context

Australia imports hand protection from Europe and from North America, so both marking systems are in daily circulation here and a single storeroom will often hold gloves marked each way. Work health and safety duties in Australia require an employer to assess the hazard and provide protective equipment suitable for it, which puts the emphasis on being able to read whichever marking is in front of you and match it to the task.

In practice that means recording the hazard first, in plain terms. A boning knife, a sheet metal edge, a wire rope, a broken glass panel and a swarf pile all cut, but they cut with different geometry, different force and different contact time. Choose the rating against that description, then keep the certification detail with the purchase record so the reasoning is still visible at the next review.

A worked example

The GRANBERG 0995 is one of the models in our range that carries both systems on the same glove. Its certifications are listed as CE Cat II, EN 388:2016+A1:2018 (4X42D), ANSI Cut Level A5, EN ISO 21420:2020 and OEKO-TEX 100.

Read the EN marking position by position. Abrasion 4, the top of that scale. Coup test X, because the yarn blunts the rotating blade and the result was invalidated, which is expected on a high performance cut fibre. Tear 4. Puncture 2. TDM cut D, which under ISO 13997 means the blade needed at least 15 N. Impact is not marked, so it was not tested and this is not an impact glove.

Now the ANSI side. The same glove is rated A5, which under ASTM F2992 means a blade load between 2200 and 2999 g. Compare that with the approximate cross reference above, where EN level D sits near 1530 g, and you can see the point of the earlier warning. The two results are consistent with each other, since D is a minimum threshold rather than a ceiling, but they are not the same number and neither one can be derived from the other. Both are real test results, and the glove genuinely holds both.

For a buyer, that is the useful shape of a specification. The EN marking supplies the full mechanical profile, including the puncture figure of 2 which tells you this is not the glove for a needle or spike hazard, and the ANSI A5 supplies the single figure a North American compliance file would ask for.

View the GRANBERG 0995.

Where to go next

• Cut Resistant gloves
• Impact Protection gloves
• About Granberg
• Mining & Resources hand protection
• Construction hand protection
• Manufacturing & Assembly hand protection
• Food Processing & Catering hand protection

Frequently asked questions

Can I convert an EN 388 cut level directly to an ANSI level?

Not exactly. Both scales now use the same family of straight blade test, so a comparison is meaningful, but the bands were drawn independently and do not line up. Use the cross reference as an approximation only, and specify a glove against the standard your own paperwork uses.

Why does my glove show an X in the EN 388 cut position?

The coup test uses a rotating circular blade, and high performance cut yarns blunt it during the test, which invalidates the result. An X is printed instead of a number. It usually indicates an aggressive cut resistant material, and the TDM letter in position five is the figure to read.

Is EN 388 better than ANSI/ISEA 105?

No. They answer different questions. EN 388 testing is mandatory before sale in the European Union and reports the full mechanical panel including tear, while ANSI/ISEA 105 is a voluntary standard that provides the cut rating a North American compliance file needs. A glove that carries both gives you the widest coverage.

What does the sixth character on an EN 388 marking mean?

Position six is impact. A P means the glove passed the impact test. If the character is missing, the glove was not submitted for that test, which is not the same as failing it.

Are Granberg gloves EN certified and ANSI rated?

Every glove in the range we supply is EN certified. Selected lines additionally carry ANSI ratings, and where a model holds one it is listed in the certifications on that product page.

Request a quote, cut resistant gloves.