Pick up two cut-resistant work gloves and you may see something like this:

ANSI A5

on one package.

Then on another:

EN 388 4X43E

At which point a perfectly reasonable person might wonder why choosing gloves suddenly requires decoding the launch sequence for a missile.

The good news is that these markings make a lot more sense once you know what each system is trying to tell you.

ANSI/ISEA and EN 388 are both used to describe protective-glove performance, but they are different standards with different rating systems and markings.

And although their modern cut-resistance tests have some similarities, you should not treat an ANSI rating and an EN 388 rating as automatically interchangeable.

Let's break it down.

Quick Answer: ANSI vs. EN 388

ANSI/ISEA 105 is a North American hand-protection classification system. For cut resistance, it uses the familiar A1 through A9 scale.

EN 388 is the European standard for gloves protecting against mechanical risks. Its marking can communicate several different performance characteristics including abrasion, cut, tear and puncture resistance. Modern EN 388 markings may also contain an A through F cut-resistance rating based on the EN ISO 13997 straight-blade test.

So:

ANSI A5 tells you primarily about a particular ANSI cut-performance level.

EN 388 4X43E tells you several things about the glove, with the E representing its EN ISO cut-resistance level.

That's the first major difference.

ANSI and EN 388 aren't simply two different names for the same rating chart.

What Is the ANSI/ISEA 105 Standard?

In the United States, one of the most common ratings you'll see on industrial work gloves comes from ANSI/ISEA 105.

The current ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 standard covers several hand- and arm-protection performance characteristics.

For cut resistance, gloves are classified from:

A1 through A9

A1 represents the lowest cut-resistance range within the scale and A9 the highest.

The current cut levels are:

The 2024 edition retained the established cut-performance scale while introducing more standardized labeling for cut, abrasion and puncture performance.

We've already gone much deeper into this system in our ANSI Cut Ratings Explained: A1–A9 Work Glove Guide.

The bigger question here is:

What happens when the glove has an EN 388 rating instead?

What Is EN 388?

EN 388:2016+A1:2018 is a European standard for protective gloves against mechanical risks.

This is where things get more interesting.

Instead of giving you one number, an EN 388 marking can report performance in multiple categories.

Depending on the tests performed, the marking can tell you about:

1. Abrasion resistance
2. Circular blade cut resistance
3. Tear resistance
4. Puncture resistance
5. EN ISO 13997 straight-blade cut resistance
6. Impact protection, when applicable

That's why you see codes such as:

4X43E

It isn't one giant rating.

It's several individual test results compressed into one marking.

How to Read an EN 388 Rating

Let's use:

EN 388 4X43E

as an example.

Here's what those positions generally mean:

An X normally indicates that a particular classification wasn't determined or isn't applicable.

An optional P can also appear at the end when a glove claims and passes the EN 388 impact-protection test.

So a glove marked:

4X43EP

is communicating substantially more information than simply saying:

Cut Level E.

This is one reason EN 388 labels can initially look more confusing — but once you know how to read them, they can actually give you a lot of information in a very small space.

What Are EN 388 Cut Levels A Through F?

The modern EN 388 system incorporates the EN ISO 13997 straight-blade test for cut resistance.

The resulting cut level ranges from:

A through F

and is measured in Newtons of force.

Higher letters indicate that greater force was required to cut through the tested glove material.

And this is where ANSI and EN 388 begin looking surprisingly similar.

ANSI vs. EN 388 Cut Ratings

Both modern systems can use a straight-blade TDM-style testing approach.

But ANSI uses the ASTM F2992 methodology while EN 388 uses EN ISO 13997.

ANSI classifications are commonly expressed using gram-based thresholds, while EN ISO classifications use Newtons.

The test approaches are similar enough that their thresholds line up surprisingly closely through part of the scale — but they are still different standards and should not be treated as certified equivalents.

Here's the easiest way to visualize it:

Now you can probably see why people are tempted to say:

ANSI A5 = EN E.

They're sitting at approximately the same threshold.

But that leads us to an important distinction.

Is ANSI A5 the Same as EN 388 Level E?

Not officially.

An ANSI A5 threshold begins at 2,200 grams.

EN ISO Level E begins at 22 Newtons.

Since one Newton is approximately equivalent to 102 grams-force, the two thresholds are very close.

But close does not mean interchangeable certification.

The testing standards and procedures aren't identical.

A manufacturer cannot simply test a glove under one standard, do some math and claim the corresponding certification under the other standard.

The glove has to be tested and reported under the applicable standard.

That's why you'll sometimes see a glove legitimately carrying both ratings.

For example, MEM currently carries LIFT Safety FiberWire A5 Cut & Impact Gloves that are listed as:

ANSI/ISEA A5

and

EN 388 Cut Level E

Those results tell essentially the same broad performance story while remaining separate tested classifications.

Why Does ANSI Continue to A9 While EN Stops at F?

This is probably the most interesting difference between the two cut scales.

The EN ISO scale tops out at:

Level F — 30 N

That roughly corresponds to the lower boundary around ANSI A6 territory.

ANSI keeps dividing higher-performance materials into additional classifications:

A7 — 4,000 g

A8 — 5,000 g

A9 — 6,000+ g

This gives the ANSI system more separation among extremely high cut-resistant materials. Industry guidance describing the development of the A1–A9 system specifically notes that the additional A7–A9 levels provide greater differentiation above the range represented by EN Level F.

That doesn't make ANSI "better."

It simply means the two systems organize the high end of cut performance differently.

What About That Old EN 388 Cut Number?

Here's another source of confusion.

You might see an EN 388 rating like:

4543

or

4341

without an A–F letter.

Older-style EN 388 markings used a Coupe Test, which repeatedly moves a circular blade across the glove material.

That cut result occupies the second position of the traditional four-digit EN marking and runs from Level 1 through Level 5.

Modern high-performance fibers created a problem for that test:

They can dull the blade.

If the blade gets progressively duller during testing, measuring how many cycles it takes to cut the material becomes less reliable.

EN 388 therefore incorporated the ISO 13997 straight-blade method, which uses a fresh straight blade and reports the result as A through F. When blade dulling occurs under the Coupe procedure, the ISO 13997 method becomes the reference cut test.

So when you're comparing modern high-cut gloves, pay particular attention to that A–F ISO cut rating when it's present.

Why Some Gloves Have Both ANSI and EN Ratings

Because manufacturers sell gloves in more than one market.

A glove sold in the United States may prominently show:

ANSI A5

while its technical documentation also reports:

EN 388 Level E

Some gloves in MEM's current assortment do exactly this.

The Advanced Gloves NiTex P-200 Cut-Resistant Work Gloves family includes configurations with both ANSI and EN classifications, including A5/E-rated protection as well as higher cut-resistant versions.

The LIFT FiberWire gloves are another good example.

Seeing two rating systems on one glove doesn't mean somebody rated it twice for fun.

It usually means the product has performance information relevant to multiple standards or markets.

Which Rating Should You Use When Choosing Work Gloves?

Start with whatever recognized performance data the manufacturer actually provides.

If you're buying for a U.S. workplace, ANSI/ISEA ratings are generally going to be the more familiar language when comparing cut resistance.

But don't dismiss an EN 388 rating.

It can provide valuable information about more than cut resistance — including abrasion, tear and puncture performance.

More importantly:

Don't choose a glove by cut rating alone.

Two A5 gloves can perform very differently on the job.

One might be:

• lightweight,
• highly dexterous,
• nitrile coated,
• breathable,
• scanner friendly.

Another might have:

• impact protection,
• heavy reinforcement,
• thicker construction,
• aggressive grip,
• substantially more bulk.

Same ANSI cut classification.

Completely different glove.

That's why our Cut-Resistant Work Gloves collection includes more than the cut number itself when comparing gloves.

The job still matters.

Cut Resistant Does Not Mean Cut Proof

Neither ANSI A9 nor EN F means a glove is impossible to cut.

These are standardized performance classifications.

They aren't force fields.

Actual workplace performance can depend on:

• the edge being handled,
• force and direction of contact,
• glove condition,
• fit,
• repeated exposure,
• abrasion,
• puncture hazards,
• impact hazards,
• and the work being performed.

Employers should select hand protection around the hazards actually present rather than simply choosing the largest number printed on the glove.

That's also why cut resistance, puncture resistance and impact protection should not be treated as the same thing.

ANSI or EN 388: Which Is Better?

Neither.

They're standards intended to communicate performance.

The useful question isn't:

Which rating system wins?

It's:

What does this glove actually protect against, and does that protection match my job?

For U.S. buyers, ANSI's A1–A9 cut scale is extremely easy to compare once you understand it.

EN 388 gives you a broader snapshot of mechanical protection in one marking.

And when a manufacturer supplies both, you get additional information for comparing the product.

The mistake is assuming that a similar-looking threshold automatically makes the certifications interchangeable.

It doesn't.

The Simple Version

If you forget everything else in this article, remember this:

ANSI A1–A9: North American cut-resistance classifications.

EN 388: European mechanical-protection standard covering several properties.

EN ISO A–F: The modern straight-blade cut rating appearing within EN 388.

ANSI A1–A6 and EN A–F have roughly similar threshold progression.

ANSI continues beyond that with A7, A8 and A9.

And:

Similar ratings are not automatic certification equivalents.

Read the actual glove specifications.

Then choose the protection level that fits the work.

Shop Cut-Resistant Work Gloves

Need gloves for sharp materials, metal handling, maintenance, warehouse work or industrial applications?

Explore MEM Supply Co.'s Cut-Resistant Work Gloves.

And if ANSI ratings still look like alphabet soup, start with:

ANSI Cut Ratings Explained: A1–A9 Work Glove Guide

For broader glove selection:

How to Choose Work Gloves: A Practical Guide for the Jobsite

Or for warehouse applications:

Coated vs. Uncoated Work Gloves for Warehouse Work