What Do Cut Levels and Test Results Really Mean?
You’ll often hear safety managers or buyers say they need a minimum of “Cut Level X” or “X grams of cut resistance”—but what does that actually mean? More importantly, what standard is being referenced, and which test method produced the result?
Understanding cut levels requires more than memorizing numbers. It requires knowing which standard applies, how testing is performed, and how lab results translate into real-world tasks. Let’s break it down—using the latest updates from ANSI/ISEA 105:2024.
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
Start with the Right Standard
In North America, cut resistance is measured using ANSI/ISEA 105, not the European EN 388 standard.
If someone is selling you a “cut level 5 glove” but can’t tell you which standard that level comes from, that’s a red flag. Always ask what standard the cut level is based on. If they can’t answer clearly, they don’t fully understand what they’re selling.
If the response is “EN 388” or “CE certified,” follow up with a simple question: “Do you have ANSI/ISEA 105 test results?”
If the glove is intended for use in the U.S. or Canada and the answer is no, keep looking. EN 388 has its place—but it should not be your benchmark in North America.
Why the Confusion Happens
Cut level confusion is common, and it usually comes down to three factors:
1. Different Testing Methods
EN 388 uses either the Coup test or ISO 13997 (TDM-style testing), while ANSI/ISEA 105 uses ASTM F2992, performed on the TDM-100 machine. Although both involve straight-edge blades, the procedures, forces, and thresholds differ—there is no direct conversion between EN and ANSI results.
In many cases, the same glove can test one or even two levels higher under the European system.
2. Overseas Manufacturing
Many coated gloves are designed and tested overseas under EN 388. Those results may not be independently verified or repeatable under ANSI conditions. That’s why third-party testing in the U.S. or Canada is critical for reliable, defensible data.
3. Marketing Simplicity
“Cut Level 5” sounds simple and memorable. But under ANSI/ISEA 105:2024, there are nine cut levels (A1–A9). A single “5” without context doesn’t tell you much about real protection.
What Changed with ANSI/ISEA 105:2024
The 2024 revision didn’t reinvent cut testing—but it did significantly improve consistency and reliability.
Key updates include:
- Testing Method Remains ASTM F2992-15: The TDM-100 straight-edge blade test remains the standard, fully phasing out older legacy methods.
- Stronger Emphasis on Data Integrity: Clearer requirements for sample preparation, blade replacement, and test frequency ensure that an A5 result means the same thing across different labs.
- Improved Labeling and Traceability: Gloves must clearly indicate the standard year and cut level achieved, making it easier to confirm that a product truly meets ANSI/ISEA 105:2024.
- Recognition of Multi-Hazard Performance: While cut resistance remains central, the update acknowledges interactions with abrasion, puncture, grip, and real-world use conditions.
The key takeaway: The gram-force thresholds defining A1–A9 haven’t changed—but confidence in the results has improved.
Understanding ANSI Cut Scores
ANSI cut testing measures the amount of weight (in grams) required for a straight-edge blade to cut through the glove material over a 20 mm (0.8 in) distance under controlled conditions.
That force corresponds directly to an ANSI cut level:
| ANSI Cut Level | Weight (Grams) | Typical Use Example |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | 200–499 | Light material handling |
| A2 | 500–999 | Small parts assembly |
| A3 | 1,000–1,499 | Sheet metal, light fabrication |
| A4 | 1,500–2,199 | Glass handling, general manufacturing |
| A5 | 2,200–2,999 | Automotive stamping |
| A6 | 3,000–3,999 | Heavy fabrication, assembly |
| A7 | 4,000–4,999 | High-cut-risk environments |
| A8 | 5,000–5,999 | Steel, sharp metal edges |
| A9 | 6,000+ | Extreme cut hazards |
(Values per ASTM F2992-15; reaffirmed in ANSI/ISEA 105:2024)
These results come from clean, controlled laboratory conditions. Real-world performance will always depend on grip, oil, temperature, motion, and handling technique. Think of cut scores as the foundation, not the entire structure.
Putting Cut Levels into Context
Let’s make this practical.
Imagine workers handling a stamped metal part weighing 10 lb (≈ 4,500 g):
- Weight supported evenly by two hands ≈ 2,250 g per hand
- That aligns roughly with an ANSI A4 cut level
If the part is awkwardly shaped and one hand bears more of the load—say ⅔ of the weight —you’re closer to 3,000 g, making an ANSI A5 glove the safer choice.
This type of reasoning provides a starting framework, not a final answer. Always factor in sharp edges, grip quality, posture, and handling method.
Beyond the Numbers: Real-World Variables
Several factors can push required protection higher than the math alone suggests:
- Shape & Balance: Irregular parts increase risk
- Handling Method: One-handed grips or vertical lifts raise hazard levels
- Automation & Lift Assists: Default to higher cut levels (A5–A7) for failure protection
- Environmental Conditions: Oil, heat, and cold affect grip and cut behavior
Cut resistance never exists in isolation.
Conclusion: Cut Levels Are a Tool—Not a Guarantee
Cut scores are valuable, but they are not a promise of safety on their own. The ANSI/ISEA 105:2024 standard gives us the most reliable baseline we’ve ever had for comparing cut-resistant gloves—but lab data will never replace task-specific hazard analysis.
The strongest hand protection decisions combine:
- Verified ANSI/ISEA 105:2024 test results
- Real-world task evaluation
- Worker feedback on comfort, dexterity, and grip
That’s how you protect hands—and just as importantly, protect credibility and compliance.
