Related Material — 68.3% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4 (EN 10088-3:2014) and EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4 (EN 10088-1:2023) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Stainless Steel category.
EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe, while EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe.
As per chemical composition, EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4 vs EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4 is a 68.3% match.
Mechanical property data is not available for both grades, so this factor could not be scored.
Combined, this makes them a related material overall at 68.3%.
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Mechanical Properties
Property
EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4
EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4
Tensile Strength
<=1100 MPa
Not specified
Hardness
<=320 HB
Not specified
Condition
Annealed (+A), conditions 1C, 1E, 1D, 1X, 1G and 2D, size range not stated; hardness for guidance only
Not specified
Typical Applications
EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4
General purposes, semi-finished products, bars, rods, wire, sections and bright products
EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4
Not documented
Key Differences
EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4 specifies Cu which is not specified for EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4.
Can EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4 Be Substituted With EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4?
EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4 and EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4 share some compositional similarity but differ enough that substitution should not be assumed. Review the differences above carefully, and consult the applicable standard or a metallurgist before using one in place of the other.
What is the difference between EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4 and EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4?
EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4 specifies Cu which is not specified for EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4.
Can EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4 be substituted with EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4?
EN 10088-3 X3CrNiMo13-4 and EN 10088-1 X2CrNiN23-4 share some compositional similarity but differ enough that substitution should not be assumed. Review the differences above carefully, and consult the applicable standard or a metallurgist before using one in place of the other.