Cut-resistant safety gloves are graded on two dominant but non-interchangeable scales: EN 388 in the EU and ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 in the US, and the same physical glove can carry different letter/number marks on each side of the Atlantic [S2][S3].
Both standards test the same four mechanical hazards (abrasion, cut, tear, puncture) and both rely on a tomodynamometer (TDM-100) for the high-end cut score, but the cut scales, the puncture scales, the abrasion scales, and the impact test all differ in width and units [S2][S3][S5].
Scope and Hazard Coverage
ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 (American National Standard for Hand Protection Classification) covers gloves, mittens, partial gloves, and sleeves, and rates them on chemical and industrial application hazards; it explicitly does not cover electric shock, ionizing or non-ionizing radiation, every thermal extreme, every chemical, welding, or fire-fighter applications [S1]. EN 388 is the European standard for protective gloves against mechanical risks and is also commonly cited in Canada, Australia/New Zealand, and parts of South America, so a US-bound shipment may still need an EN 388 mark for overseas facilities [S3][S9].
Both standards isolate four mechanical risks: cut, abrasion, tear (EN 388), and puncture; ANSI/ISEA 105 drops tear from its core mechanical block and folds cut, abrasion, and puncture into a single performance score [S2][S5]. Only EN 388 carries an optional impact (knuckle) test, marked with a P suffix, while ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 includes impact protection testing separately [S7].
Cut Resistance: Methods, Machines, and Units
ANSI/ISEA 105 cut testing follows ASTM F2292-15 using a TDM (tomodynamometer) that pulls a blade in 20 mm paths across the glove at varied gram loads; the sample is cut five times at three different loads, averaged, and converted to a 1-9 scale now labelled A1-A9 [S1][S3]. EN 388 historically used the Coupe test (a rotating blade under fixed weight) on a 1-5 scale, but if the Coupe result lands in level 3-5 the standard requires ISO 13997 (the same TDM-100 method), and the result is reported in newtons and lettered A through F [S3][S8].
The 2024 ANSI cut scale in grams-force runs A1 at 200-499 g, A2 at 500-999 g, A3 at 1,000-1,499 g (light), A4 at 1,500-2,199 g, A5 at 2,200-2,999 g, A6 at 3,000-3,999 g (medium), and A7-A9 from 4,000 g up to 6,000+ g (heavy) [S1]. EN 388 letter grades A through F sit on the same TDM hardware as ANSI, so the top F rating is widely mapped to ANSI A9, which is the practical equivalence point procurement specs use when translating between regions [S6].
Abrasion, Puncture, and Tear Scales Side by Side
Puncture is the easiest scale to misread: both standards use the same industrial puncture probe (10-150 N), but ANSI 105 reports it on a 1-5 scale while EN 388 reports it on a 1-4 scale, so a single glove can carry a 4 on one mark and a 3 on the other for the identical physical test [S3].
Abrasion uses weighted abrasive wheels and counts cycles to failure. ANSI 105 grades 0-6, where level 1 needs at least 100 cycles and level 6 needs more than 20,000; EN 388 grades 1-4, where level 1 also starts at 100 cycles but level 4 is set at 8,000 cycles [S3]. Tear is reported only on EN 388 on a 1-4 scale, which is why a US spec sheet that does not list tear is not necessarily inferior, only narrower in declared properties [S2][S5].
Selection by Task and Hazard
For packaging, light assembly, and cardboard handling, A1-A3 (200-1,499 g) is the typical ANSI pick; the EN 388 equivalents are Coupe 1-2 or ISO 13997 A-B [S1]. For HVAC, electrical work, and metal fabrication, A4-A6 (1,500-3,999 g) or EN 388 ISO 13997 C-D is the workhorse band, and at A7 and above (4,000+ g, ISO 13997 E-F) you are in heavy blade-contact, recycling, and sharp-metal territory [S1][S3].
If the job involves impact from presses, dropped tools, or rotating machinery, EN 388 P-marked gloves or ANSI 105 impact-tested gloves are the only relevant options, and the impact mark must be specified separately from the cut score because the two tests are independent [S7]. A specifier who only writes "cut level 5" without naming the standard has already lost the procurement argument, because EN 388 Coupe 5 and ANSI A5 are not the same score, and EN 388 ISO 13997 E is what most modern high-performance gloves actually carry [S3][S6].
Where Each Standard Fits and Where It Does Not
ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 is the binding mark for US OSHA-aligned PPE programmes and for any US-bound shipment, while EN 388 is mandatory for CE-marked gloves sold in the EU and is the de facto reference in most non-US industrial markets [S3][S9]. A facility that runs both regions typically dual-stamps, but it must run both test programmes, because the standards are not convertible by a simple table; a glove rated EN 388 4-5-4-4 and ANSI A6-A6 is two different test programmes on the same physical sample, with the cut number arriving from different machines at different loads [S2][S5].
EN 388 is not appropriate as a sole reference for welding gloves, chemical handling beyond a splash rating, or fire-fighter applications, and ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 explicitly excludes the same set; those hazards need EN 407, EN 374, or NFPA 1971 referenced instead, and the cut score alone tells you nothing about thermal or chemical performance [S1][S8].
Limitations, Failure Modes, and Common Misreads
The classic failure mode is reading the letter as if the scales match: EN 388 "Cut 5" via Coupe is not the same as ANSI A5, and it is not even the same as EN 388 ISO 13997 E, because the Coupe test is known to dull on high-cut fabrics and triggers the ISO 13997 retest for any Coupe score of 3 or higher [S3][S5]. Specifiers who skip that retest and quote the Coupe number are running a 2015-era glove on a 2016-or-later test method, which is one of the most common compliance gaps in cross-border audits [S3].
A second failure mode is mixing the puncture scales: an EN 388 puncture "4" sits on a 1-4 scale, while an ANSI 105 puncture "4" sits on a 1-5 scale, so a glove with EN 4/ANSI 3 is not under-rated, it is on the same probe and the same newton range [S3]. A third is using the cut score for tear or abrasion duty: a top-tier A9/F cut glove can still score only level 1-2 on abrasion, which matters in stamping and glass handling where the cut hazard is paired with a high-cycle wear hazard [S1][S3].
Reference and Sourcing Notes
For procurement, the actionable spec line is: standard name and revision (ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 or EN 388:2016+A1:2018), the four mechanical scores in order, the cut method (ASTM F2292-15 / TDM or ISO 13997), and, if relevant, the impact mark (P or ANSI impact pass) [S1][S2][S3][S7]. Verbatim from the ANSI blog, the 2024 cut scale assigns "200-6,000+ grams of cut resistance" across A1-A9, with the A4-A6 band covering 1,500-3,999 g for "construction, glass handling, and metal fabrication" [S1]. The Ergodyne 2021 explainer adds that the same TDM-100 hardware underlies both ANSI A1-A9 and EN 388 ISO 13997 A-F, which is the technical reason a cross-walk is even possible [S3].
Cross-spec work in adjacent PPE categories, for example machine guarding and arc-rated clothing, follows the same dual-standard pattern, and the machine safety reference page collects the equivalent decision logic for guards and interlocks. For buyers also reviewing cut-off and shutoff hardware, the comparison of HPBV vs TOV shutoff class and temperature limits follows the same dual-standard logic. Watch for the next ANSI/ISEA 105 revision cycle and the next EN 388 amendment (the 2016+A1:2018 update is the current baseline cited in vendor technical files), since any glove spec written only to a cut letter without naming the revision year will drift the moment a new test load table lands [S3][S7].
Spec-level background on the components involved: decade resistance box.