If you buy cut-resistant gloves, you will sooner or later face two labels that look almost identical: A4 on one glove and TDM D on another. They are not the same rating. One follows ANSI/ISEA 105, the North American glove standard; the other follows EN 388, the European standard. Both measure cut resistance — but with different tests, different scales, and different rules. Misreading them can leave your team under-protected or paying for more protection than the job needs.
This guide compares ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 388 side by side: what each tests, how the cut scales line up, where they are NOT interchangeable, and how to choose the right standard for your workplace.
Why Two Standards Exist
ANSI/ISEA 105 is maintained by the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) and is the reference cut-protection standard in North America. EN 388 is maintained by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and applies across Europe, where it pairs with the EU PPE Regulation 2016/425 certification system.
Both standards rate mechanical hazards — cut, abrasion, tear, and puncture — but they evolved on separate tracks. The result: two cut scales that measure related things in different ways. A glove sold globally often carries both ratings, and each rating has to be earned on that standard’s own test rig.
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires employers to select appropriate hand protection based on a workplace hazard assessment — see OSHA’s PPE selection guidance — but OSHA does not mandate one standard over the other. In practice, North American buyers specify ANSI/ISEA 105 levels, European buyers specify EN 388 levels, and global companies must speak both languages.
EN 388 Cut Ratings: Coupe vs TDM
EN 388:2016+A1:2018 reports mechanical performance as a six-character code under a shield pictogram: abrasion (0–4), Coupe cut (0–5), tear (0–4), puncture (0–4), TDM cut (A–F), and impact (P if tested).
The standard runs two different cut tests:
- Coupe test — a rotating circular blade moves back and forth across the sample under a fixed load, and the number of cycles to cut through is compared to a cotton reference. Results are graded 0–5.
- TDM test — a straight blade is drawn across the sample once, with the force needed to cut through 20 mm of material measured. Results are graded A (≥ 2 N) through F (≥ 30 N).
The critical detail: high-performance fibers like HPPE, glass fiber, and steel wire can blunt the Coupe blade, producing inflated ratings. When the Coupe result reaches level 3 or above, EN 388 requires the TDM test to run, and the TDM letter becomes the reference cut rating. The Coupe digit may then be marked “X” (not tested) or “C” (no rating awarded).
If you want the full mechanics of this dual-test system, see our detailed breakdown: EN 388 Cut Levels Explained: Coupe vs TDM Test.
ANSI/ISEA 105 Cut Ratings: A1–A9
ANSI/ISEA 105 (current edition 2024) rates cut resistance on a single nine-level scale, A1–A9, based exclusively on the TDM-style test (ASTM F2992). There is no Coupe test in ANSI/ISEA 105, which sidesteps the blade-dulling problem entirely. The scale measures the grams of force needed to cut through the material:
- A1: 200–499 g — light cut hazards (electronics assembly, inspection)
- A2: 500–999 g — light-to-medium (small parts handling)
- A3: 1,000–1,499 g — medium (manufacturing, warehouse)
- A4: 1,500–2,199 g — medium-high (construction, recycling)
- A5: 2,200–2,999 g — high (metal fabrication, glass)
- A6: 3,000–3,999 g — high (aerospace, plate handling)
- A7: 4,000–4,999 g — very high (automotive stamping)
- A8: 5,000–5,999 g — very high (demolition, scrap)
- A9: ≥ 6,000 g — severe cut hazards
Beyond cut, ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 rates abrasion (0–6, Taber machine), puncture (0–5), and chemical permeation/degradation — each with its own test method and scale. The standard also defines how ratings must be marked: gloves rated for cut should display the cut level clearly, and the full standard reference is maintained by ISEA, the standard’s developer.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Because both standards’ cut ratings ultimately rest on the same straight-blade (TDM) physics, they line up reasonably well — but not perfectly:
| EN 388 TDM level | Force threshold | ≈ ANSI/ISEA 105 level | Typical hazards |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | ≥ 2 N (≈ 200 g) | A1 | Light assembly, inspection |
| B | ≥ 5 N (≈ 500 g) | A2 | Small parts, packaging |
| C | ≥ 10 N (≈ 1,000 g) | A3 | Manufacturing, logistics |
| D | ≥ 15 N (≈ 1,500 g) | A4 | Construction, recycling |
| E | ≥ 22 N (≈ 2,200 g) | A5 | Metal fab, glass handling |
| F | ≥ 30 N (≈ 3,000 g) | A6 | Aerospace, plate handling |
| — | — | A7–A9 | Severe hazards — no EN 388 equivalent |
Two things stand out. First, the ANSI scale extends further: A7–A9 (4,000–6,000+ g) have no EN 388 equivalent, since the EN scale tops out at F (30 N). If a job truly needs cut protection above ~3,000 g of force, ANSI/ISEA 105 gives you the language to specify it. Second, older EN 388 Coupe digits (1–5) cannot be converted into ANSI levels at all — they come from a fundamentally different test. Only the TDM letter has a meaningful ANSI counterpart.
Where the Standards Are NOT Interchangeable
Cut ratings are only one line of each standard. The other mechanical tests differ in method and scale, so their results cannot be swapped:
- Abrasion: EN 388 uses the Martindale machine (0–4). ANSI/ISEA 105 uses the Taber machine (0–6). Different machines, different scales — an EN 388 abrasion 4 is not an ANSI abrasion 4.
- Puncture: EN 388 measures penetration force with a 4.5 mm stylus (0–4). ANSI/ISEA 105 uses a different probe and reports 0–5. Same hazard, different measurement.
- Additional coverage: ANSI/ISEA 105 includes chemical permeation/degradation and a dorsal impact rating. EN 388’s impact test (the “P” mark) covers only knuckle protection, and chemical risks are handled by a separate standard (EN ISO 374). You cannot assume one standard covers what the other does.
Bottom line: you can translate cut levels between the standards with reasonable confidence. For everything else, treat each standard as its own language.
Which Standard Should You Specify?
Your answer depends on where the gloves will be used and who will audit them:
- Selling into or operating in Europe? Specify EN 388 — it is the legally relevant standard under the EU PPE Regulation, and buyers expect the shield pictogram with the six-character code.
- Selling into or operating in North America? Specify ANSI/ISEA 105 levels — A1 through A9 are the language North American EHS teams use in hazard assessments.
- Operating globally? Ask suppliers for both ratings on the glove’s technical data sheet. Dual-rated gloves are common from major manufacturers, and they let a single SKU satisfy buyers on both continents.
- Need ultra-high cut protection? Lean on ANSI/ISEA 105’s A7–A9 — EN 388 has no equivalent above TDM F.
Whatever standard you use, build the selection on a documented hazard assessment — what exactly contacts the worker’s hands, at what force and frequency — rather than on a single letter or number. Our cut-resistant gloves selection guide walks through matching ratings to real job tasks.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Treating “cut level 5” as high protection. A Coupe 5 from the old EN 388 scale is not equivalent to a TDM F — and EN 388:2016 specifically demotes Coupe in favor of TDM for high-performance materials. Always check which test produced the number.
- Comparing abrasion numbers across standards. EN 388’s 0–4 and ANSI’s 0–6 are different machines and different scales.
- Assuming a dual-rated glove was tested twice. It should have been — the tests are separate. Ask for the test report if the claim matters for compliance.
- Picking a level without a hazard assessment. Overspecifying (A9 for a warehouse) costs comfort and money; underspecifying (A2 for sheet metal) costs injuries.
Conclusion
ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 388 both aim at the same goal — keeping workers’ hands safe — but they get there by different routes. ANSI’s A1–A9 scale is finer-grained and extends higher; EN 388’s A–F TDM scale is the European legal currency, with the Coupe test now playing a secondary role. The two cut scales translate reasonably well at the mid-range, but abrasion, puncture, and chemical performance do not translate at all. Know which scale you’re reading, specify the one your market recognizes, and let the hazard assessment — not the label — make the final call.
AceppePro is an industrial PPE manufacturer supplying safety gloves, respiratory protection, and protective workwear. For bulk or OEM inquiries on cut-resistant and industrial safety gloves, visit aceppe.com and tell us about your application.
