Sharp edges, blades, stamped metal, glass, unfinished components… handling any of these can cause serious hand injuries in an instant. And we’re not just talking about a little cut.

Cuts, lacerations, and punctures account for nearly 44% of reported hand injuries, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – and even if you don’t know much about cut resistance in safety gloves, we can all agree that number isn’t good.

If you’re new to understanding cut defense or just need a refresher, this blog is for you. In it, we break down what cut resistance really means in the safety world, how it's tested, how to read both rating systems, and how to match the right level of protection to the task.

What is cut resistance in safety gloves?

Cut resistance refers to a glove material’s ability to withstand cutting forces from sharp or abrasive edges that could otherwise slice through the material. Any time a worker handles sharp metal, glass, blades, stamped parts, or unfinished materials, the gloves are exposed to these hazards on a regular basis.

Unlike abrasion hazards, which wear a glove down gradually, cut hazards often cause sudden failure. A single sharp edge or slip of a tool can result in an injury if the glove doesn’t provide adequate cut protection for the task.

However, repeated exposure to sharp materials can also weaken glove materials over time. Even when a glove isn’t visibly cut through, ongoing contact with sharp edges can cause damage and reduce the ability to resist future cuts.

This type of exposure can lead to:

• Cuts or lacerations through the glove material
• Punctures from sharp edges or points
• Yarn or fiber breakage within the glove structure
• Compromised protection that leads to direct hand exposure
• Loss of confidence and reduced PPE compliance

Key benefits of cut resistance when needed:

So, why are cut-resistant gloves important? Because cut injuries happen quickly and with little warning, cut resistance plays a critical role in protecting workers from both minor and severe hand injuries.

Key benefits of high cut resistance when needed:

• Reduces the risk of lacerations and puncture injuries
• Helps prevent lost-time incidents and medical treatment cases
• Maintains protection when handling sharp or unfinished materials
• Supports compliance by balancing protection with comfort and dexterity
• Improves worker confidence in PPE during high-risk tasks

Without adequate cut resistance, even a well-fitting glove can fail instantly, leaving workers exposed to serious injury, even in tasks that feel routine or familiar.

It's important to note that “cut-resistant” does not mean “cut-proof.” Cut resistance is about selecting the right level of protection to manage risk while allowing workers to perform their jobs safely and efficiently.

The most common workplace cut hazards

Not all cut hazards are the same. Understanding the differences helps both workers and safety managers dial in the right level of protection – keeping hands safe without going overboard.;

Below are some of the most common cut hazards workers encounter when handling sharp materials, tools, components, or equipment across a wide range of industries.

1. Laceration hazards (sharp-edge cuts)

Lacerations occur when hands come into contact with sharp or unfinished edges, such as sheet metal, glass, blades, or stamped parts. These are among the most common cut injuries across manufacturing, construction, automotive, warehousing, glass handling, metal fabrication, HVAC installation, and maintenance work.

• Typically caused by sliding or dragging hands across sharp edges
• Can range from minor cuts to deep wounds requiring medical attention
• Well-matched with cut-resistant gloves designed for edge protection

2. Puncture hazards (pointed-object cuts)

Many laceration injuries often begin with a puncture. Puncture injuries happen when a sharp point concentrates force into a small area, allowing it to penetrate glove materials.

Common in:

• Construction
• Warehousing distribution
• Automotive repair
• Utilities
• Landscaping
• Waste and recycling

Sources include:

• Wire ends
• Metal burrs
• Fasteners
• Nails
• Splinters
• Sharp debris

3. Shearing and crushing hazards (high-force cut risks)

These hazards occur when hands are caught between moving parts or between a moving and stationary object, such as press brakes, rollers, or mechanical assemblies.

• Injuries may involve cutting, crushing, or both
• Severity increases rapidly due to applied force
• Gloves may help reduce minor cuts but are not a substitute for machine guarding or lockout/tagout

Common in:

• Manufacturing
• Construction equipment
• Agriculture
• Mining
• Heavy equipment maintenance
• Automotive stamping

4. Rotating or moving equipment hazards (severe cut risks)

Exposed blades, belts, shafts, or rotating machinery can cause slicing injuries, avulsions, or amputations.

• Injuries happen quickly and with little warning
• Gloves alone cannot protect against these hazards
• Engineering controls and guarding are required in addition to PPE

Common in:

• Woodworking
• Agriculture
• Manufacturing
• Landscaping
• Construction
• Machine shops

What are the cut ratings standards in safety gloves?

Choosing the right cut-resistant glove starts with understanding how cut protection is measured. Without standardized testing, it would be nearly impossible to compare gloves from different manufacturers or know whether a glove is appropriate for a specific hazard. Cut rating standards create a consistent benchmark for evaluating performance, giving safety professionals confidence that they're selecting PPE based on objective testing rather than marketing claims.

Two major standards define how cut resistance is measured: ANSI/ISEA 105 in North America and EN 388 internationally.

ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 cut resistance standard – North America

In the United States, cut resistance in safety gloves is classified under the ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 hand protection standard. This standard provides a consistent, repeatable way to measure how well glove materials resist cutting forces and helps safety managers match protection levels to specific job-site hazards.

ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 establishes ASTM F2992/F2992M-15 as the official test method for measuring cut resistance. This method evaluates materials on a nine-level scale (A1–A9), allowing for more precise differentiation between different levels of cut hazards.

Prior to 2016, the standard used a 1–5 scale. The expanded A1–A9 scale was introduced to better reflect the wide range of cutting risks present in modern industrial applications.

How cut resistance is tested under ANSI/ISEA 105-2024

ANSI/ISEA 105-2024 uses a Tomodynamometer (TDM-100) testing machine to measure cut resistance under controlled conditions.

How the test works:

• A straight razor blade is drawn across a glove material sample in a single, consistent direction
• The blade travels approximately 20 mm across the sample during each cut
• Multiple cuts are made under increasing force levels
• A new blade is used for every cut to eliminate dulling and ensure consistency
• Force is gradually increased until the blade cuts completely through the material

To generate an accurate result, the test is designed to achieve five cut-through distances within defined force ranges. This process is repeated three times, and the results are averaged.

The final cut resistance value is recorded in grams, representing the amount of force required to cut through the material.

So, what cut level do you actually need?

Testing is good to understand, but it’s not a 1:1 equivalent to the real world. That’s why all the testing values are used to create cut scores to help create consistent scoring in gloves – helping you determine what is best for you on the job

There are 9 levels of cut resistance. Based on the measured cut force, materials are classified into one of nine cut levels, labeled as A1-A9.

The higher the cut level, the more force a glove can withstand before cut-through occurs. But higher cut resistance isn’t always the safest or most practical choice.

The right cut level depends on how often workers encounter cut hazards on the job, how aggressive those hazards are, and what the task requires in terms of dexterity and control.

Here’s a simple way to think about it:

• Lower cut levels (A1–A2): Best for light handling tasks where sharp edges are present but contact is minimal or incidental. These gloves prioritize dexterity and comfort over heavy protection.
• Moderate cut levels (A3–A4): Common for general material handling, light fabrication, and assembly work where workers regularly handle parts with defined edges but not extreme sharpness.
• High cut levels (A5–A6): Designed for frequent handling of sharp materials such as sheet metal, stamped parts, or sharp components in manufacturing and utilities.
• Very high cut levels (A7–A9): Intended for continuous exposure to highly aggressive edges or extreme cut hazards, where maximum protection is required and reduced dexterity is an acceptable tradeoff.

How the standard is labeled:

Though manufacturers are not required to label cut scores, ANSI/ISEA 105 cut-resistant gloves will be marked on the label or glove branding with their TDM-100 score, referenced as A1-A9.

EN 388 cut resistance standard – Europe

How EN 388 cut testing works

EN 388 uses a dual cut-testing system and may use one or both, depending on how the material performs during testing. Both cut tests work together to provide accurate results across a wide range of materials.

1. Coup Test (circular blade test)

The Coup Test is used for lower cut-resistant materials where blade dulling is not an issue.

How the test works:

• A circular blade moves back and forth across the glove material under a fixed load
• The blade rotates with each pass
• The number of cycles required to cut through the material is compared to a control sample
• Results are reported on a Level 1–5 scale

If the blade cuts cleanly without excessive dulling, the Coup Test result is considered valid.

2. ISO 13997 (straight-blade/TDM cut test)

When a material causes blade dulling during the Coup Test, the result is no longer reliable. In these cases, EN 388 requires the ISO 13997 test to be used.

How the test works:

• A straight razor blade is drawn across the glove material
• The blade is applied under increasing force
• A new blade is used for each cut to prevent dulling
• The force required to cut through the material over a fixed distance is recorded

Results are measured in Newtons and reported on an A–F scale, with F representing the highest level of cut resistance.

This method delivers more consistent, repeatable results for gloves designed to withstand aggressive cut hazards.

How EN 388 cut results are labeled

Because EN 388 uses two different cut tests, glove markings can appear in multiple formats depending on how the material performed during testing.

Here’s what the markings mean:

• 1–5 rating = Valid Coup Test result
• A–F rating = ISO 13997 straight-blade result
• “X” marking = Coup Test result invalid due to blade dulling

For example:

A glove marked with an “X/F” rating means:

• The material caused excessive blade dulling during the Coup Test
• The ISO 13997 test was required instead
• The glove achieved the highest cut level (F) under the ISO 13997 method

This dual-test system helps ensure cut-resistant gloves are evaluated accurately, especially as high-performance yarns and engineered fibers continue evolving.

ANSI/ISEA 105 vs. EN 388 cut resistance: How do the standards compare?

If your operation ships product internationally, works with global suppliers, or sources PPE across regions, you'll likely encounter gloves labeled under both ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 388.

Understanding how these two standards relate to each other – and where they don't line up – helps you make smarter glove decisions regardless of which label is on the box.

Both ANSI/ISEA 105 and EN 388 measure cut resistance, but they use different test methods, different units of measurement, and different rating scales. The result is two systems that are related - but not directly interchangeable.

Can you convert ANSI/ISEA cut levels to EN cut levels?

This is one of the most common questions safety managers ask - and the short answer is: not directly.

Both standards use the same testing machine - the TDM-100 - which means the underlying test is comparable. The difference is how results are reported: ANSI/ISEA uses grams, EN 388 uses Newtons. Since 1 Newton equals roughly 102 grams of force, the numbers can be loosely cross-referenced at lower protection levels.

The bigger issue is that the two scales don't cover the same range. EN 388 tops out at Level F, which is roughly equivalent to an ANSI/ISEA A6. That means if a glove is rated A7, A8, or A9 under ANSI/ISEA, there's simply no EN 388 equivalent - the European scale doesn't go that high.

So, while the two standards rhyme at moderate cut levels, they're not interchangeable - and at higher cut levels, ANSI/ISEA is the only scale that applies.

For a side-by-side look at where the levels align:

CHART

Why you might see both ratings on the same glove

It's increasingly common for gloves to carry both an ANSI/ISEA rating and an EN 388 rating, especially for products sold in multiple markets. When you see both, it means the glove was tested under each standard separately. The ratings don't cancel each other out or need to match - they're independent certifications for different regional markets.

If you're evaluating a glove that carries both labels, focus on the rating that applies to your region and hazard profile. If you need to align across global facilities, look for gloves that have been tested to both standards and compare the underlying gram or Newton values rather than the letter or number designations alone.

Common misconceptions about cut resistance

HexArmor® can help

Cut resistance is one of the most important factors in any hand protection program - but selecting the right level requires more than reading a label. The right glove depends on the specific hazards in your environment, how workers interact with those hazards, and what the task demands in terms of dexterity, grip, and comfort.

Plus, we're an exclusive licensee of SuperFabric®* brand material, a high-quality, cut-resistant material made from a configuration of tiny guard plates that protect against not only cut injuries but puncture, abrasion, and needlestick injuries as well, without sacrificing dexterity.

Download our SuperFabric® solutions brochure and see what product may be the best for you and your application or learn more about SuperFabric® technology here.

Let us know if you need help or if you're ready to start a trial - our Solution Specialists are ready to work with you. Call 1.877.MY ARMOR or send us a message.

Browse all HexArmor® cut-resistant hand protection

[Blog originally posted October 1, 2019]

*SuperFabric® is a registered Trademark of HDM, Inc.