En 388 Vs Ansi Isea 105 Cut Levels

Quick lookup: our free safety standards converter maps EN, ANSI/ISEA, CSA and NIOSH ratings side by side — cut levels, respirator classes, hard hats, hi-vis, eye, and hearing.

A glove marked EN 388 4X42C — what ANSI cut level is that?

Published July 11, 2026 · Last updated July 26, 2026

Short answer: The final letter is the cut grade: EN 388 level C means ≥10 newtons on the ISO 13997 TDM test, which converts to roughly 1,020 grams — ANSI/ISEA 105 level A3. The general map: EN A≈A1, B≈A2, C≈A3, D≈A4, E≈A5, F≈A6 and up.

EN 388 vs ANSI/ISEA 105: Glove Cut Levels Converted

Amazon and European suppliers routinely list gloves with only an EN 388 shield, while US safety programs write specs in ANSI A-levels. Because the 2016 revisions of both standards adopted the same tomodynamometer (TDM) cut test — ISO 13997 in Europe, ASTM F2992 in the US — the two scales measure the same thing in different units: newtons vs grams. This guide converts them honestly and decodes every character in the EN shield. For the US scale itself, start with our ANSI/ISEA 105 A1–A9 explainer.

Why this matters.
Buying on the wrong scale gets workers hurt or overspends the glove budget: an EN 'level 4' coup digit is not ANSI A4, and an EN letter C glove bought as a 'high cut glove' is only mid-scale A3 protection. The conversion table below is the difference between spec and guess.

Reading the EN 388 shield, character by character

A current EN 388:2016 marking has up to six characters under the shield, in order: abrasion (1–4), coup-test cut (1–5, or X when the newer TDM test governs), tear (1–4), puncture (1–4), then the TDM cut letter (A–F per ISO 13997), and optionally P for passing the EN 13594 impact test. So 4X42C reads: top-grade abrasion, coup test skipped, mid tear, mid puncture, TDM cut level C. The letter — not the old second digit — is the number your spec should care about, exactly as the A-number is the figure that matters in the US system.

The conversion — newtons to grams

Both TDM tests measure the force a blade needs to cut through the material over a standard stroke. Europe reports newtons; the US reports grams-force. One newton is about 102 grams-force, which produces the conversion table below. Two honesty notes: first, the scales' break points don't align perfectly — EN level F starts at 30 N (≈3,060 g), which lands at ANSI A6, but a strong F glove may test into A7 territory; second, a conversion is an approximation of the marketing kind unless the maker publishes both certifications, which quality brands increasingly do. Our stocked cut-resistant gloves list the ANSI level on every product page, with picks ranked in the best cut-resistant gloves guide and the A5-specific guide.

Conversion at 1 N ≈ 102 g-force. Both scales use the same TDM machine test (ISO 13997 / ASTM F2992); equivalences are functional approximations.

Impact, chemical, and the other letters

Cut is only one axis. EN 388's trailing P marks back-of-hand impact protection under EN 13594 — the US answers with a separate standard entirely, with its own 1–3 levels; browse tested models in the impact-resistant collection. Chemical protection is likewise separate on both continents (EN 374 vs permeation data — see the chemical-resistant collection). And task categories change the calculus: welding gloves prioritize heat, mechanics gloves add TPR that may not be ANSI 138 tested — a distinction our listings state plainly — and general leather work gloves often publish no cut rating at all.

Writing a spec that works on both continents

Spec the test, not the badge: 'TDM cut ≥15 N (EN 388 level D) or ANSI/ISEA 105 A4' names the same protection twice and lets purchasing buy from either market. For US-side compliance context, OSHA 1910.138 requires hand protection matched to the hazard without naming levels — the hazard assessment sets the level, and our choose-by-level how-to maps common tasks to A-numbers (food-service tasks have their own food-grade picks). Disposable nitrile is a different conversation entirely — thickness in mils and chemical splash, not cut — covered in the nitrile collection; needlestick hazards likewise have their own needle-resistant category.

Worked example: decoding 'EN 388: 4X42C' on an import glove listing

A maintenance manager finds well-priced gloves listed only as 'EN 388: 4X42C' and needs to know whether they meet the site's ANSI A4 cut spec. The decode:

1. Split the marking into its six positions. 4 (abrasion) — X (coup cut, not performed) — 4 (tear) — 2 (puncture) — C (TDM cut letter) — no trailing P (no impact rating).
2. Ignore the X correctly. X in the coup position isn't a defect: it means the maker deferred to the newer TDM test, which is exactly the number the ANSI scale also uses.
3. Convert the TDM letter. Level C = ≥10 N ≈ 1,020 g-force, which maps to ANSI/ISEA 105 level A3.
4. Compare to the site spec. The spec says A4 (≥1,500 g). A3 falls short — these gloves are a legitimate mid-cut product but not compliant for this site's sharp-edge tasks.
5. Buy to the spec, either scale. The purchase line becomes 'EN 388 TDM level D or ANSI A4 minimum' — either badge satisfies it, and dual-certified models remove all doubt.

Thirty seconds of decoding prevented an under-spec buy that looked like a bargain.

Frequently asked questions

Further reading on this site

• ANSI/ISEA 105 Cut Levels A1–A9 Explained — the US scale in depth
• How to Choose Cut-Resistant Gloves by ANSI Level — task-to-level mapping
• ANSI/ISEA 138 Impact Standard — the dorsal-impact system EN 388's P approximates
• OSHA 29 CFR 1910.138 — the US hand-protection rule itself
• Best Cut-Resistant Gloves — current picks with levels flagged
• Cut-resistant glove collection — ANSI level listed on every product

Related reference

Related on this site: how to read the ansi cut level on gloves, impact resistant gloves ansi isea 138, and cut resistance glove levels explained: ansi/isea 105 a1 through a9.

Why trust WC Safety

WC Safety is an independent, affiliate-supported review site. It is not a retailer: it holds no inventory, takes no orders, and earns only from qualifying purchases through clearly marked links — which never changes what a product is rated to do. Standards language is taken from the regulation text directly, and ratings are reported as the manufacturer publishes them. We run no laboratory and perform no testing of our own. Where published sources disagree, we say so and plan on the conservative figure rather than the flattering one.

Our methodology

Figures come from the regulation and the published specification, in that order. Derated numbers are calculated, not estimated. Nothing here is presented as a measured result, because we measure nothing.

Researched and written by Steven Eaton, editor of WC Safety. Steven holds no safety certification and does not test products; this page compares what manufacturers and regulators publish, with the gaps in that record marked. Last reviewed August 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions