Ainsley
- #483 for girls in 2025, 621 births
- #8,910 for boys in 2025, 8 births
- Given to girls 98.0% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 2013 · 974 births
- Debut · girls
- 7 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 20,470since 1961
Ainsley over time
Rank among girls' names. Ainsley has never cracked the top 300 here.
Gaps mean fewer than 5 babies received the name that year, so the SSA doesn't publish it.
Show data table
| Year | girls | boys | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rank | births | rank | births | |
| 2025 | #483 | 621 | #8,910 | 8 |
| 2024 | #704 | 399 | — | |
| 2023 | #598 | 498 | #8,255 | 9 |
| 2022 | #507 | 622 | #7,262 | 11 |
| 2021 | #364 | 845 | #8,166 | 9 |
| 2020 | #355 | 872 | #7,502 | 10 |
| 2019 | #478 | 654 | — | |
| 2018 | #399 | 774 | #10,760 | 6 |
| 2017 | #352 | 902 | #7,095 | 11 |
| 2016 | #344 | 970 | #6,053 | 14 |
| 2015 | #338 | 967 | #5,289 | 17 |
| 2014 | #337 | 1,001 | #6,632 | 12 |
| 2013 | #332 | 974 | #7,026 | 11 |
| 2012 | #341 | 930 | #5,720 | 15 |
| 2011 | #363 | 891 | #5,945 | 14 |
| 2010 | #355 | 898 | #12,231 | 5 |
| 2009 | #412 | 772 | #8,985 | 8 |
| 2008 | #443 | 719 | #5,767 | 15 |
| 2007 | #458 | 704 | #9,788 | 7 |
| 2006 | #456 | 693 | #8,732 | 8 |
| 2005 | #440 | 691 | #9,115 | 7 |
| 2004 | #399 | 764 | #5,492 | 14 |
| 2003 | #437 | 686 | #6,258 | 11 |
| 2002 | #454 | 636 | #6,522 | 10 |
| 2001 | #483 | 578 | #5,667 | 12 |
| 2000 | #1,481 | 124 | #10,349 | 5 |
| 1999 | #1,548 | 109 | — | |
| 1998 | #1,508 | 112 | #6,314 | 9 |
| 1997 | #1,899 | 77 | #7,281 | 7 |
| 1996 | #1,792 | 82 | #6,496 | 8 |
| 1995 | #1,920 | 72 | #7,792 | 6 |
| 1994 | #2,188 | 61 | #8,800 | 5 |
| 1993 | #2,033 | 68 | #7,638 | 6 |
| 1992 | #1,908 | 73 | — | |
| 1991 | #1,857 | 76 | — | |
| 1990 | #1,733 | 84 | #6,415 | 7 |
| 1989 | #1,804 | 74 | #6,941 | 6 |
| 1988 | #1,839 | 67 | #4,786 | 9 |
| 1987 | #2,309 | 46 | #3,521 | 13 |
| 1986 | #2,512 | 39 | #5,926 | 6 |
| 1985 | #3,084 | 29 | #5,785 | 6 |
| 1984 | #3,726 | 21 | — | |
| 1983 | #3,242 | 25 | #4,141 | 9 |
| 1982 | #3,530 | 23 | #5,003 | 7 |
| 1981 | #4,344 | 17 | #5,468 | 6 |
| 1980 | #4,978 | 14 | #4,940 | 7 |
| 1979 | #4,420 | 16 | #4,842 | 7 |
| 1978 | #4,931 | 13 | — | |
| 1977 | #5,213 | 12 | #4,164 | 8 |
| 1976 | #5,601 | 10 | #4,418 | 7 |
| 1975 | #5,161 | 11 | #5,464 | 5 |
| 1974 | #8,775 | 5 | #4,634 | 6 |
| 1973 | #5,191 | 10 | — | |
| 1972 | #5,109 | 10 | #4,441 | 6 |
| 1971 | #8,324 | 5 | — | |
| 1970 | #6,362 | 7 | — | |
| 1969 | #7,471 | 5 | #4,404 | 5 |
| 1968 | — | — | ||
| 1967 | — | — | ||
| 1966 | — | — | ||
| 1965 | #6,539 | 5 | — | |
| 1964 | — | — | ||
| 1963 | — | #3,646 | 6 | |
| 1962 | — | — | ||
| 1961 | #5,309 | 7 | — | |
| 1960 | — | — | ||
| 1959 | — | — | ||
| 1958 | — | — | ||
| 1957 | — | — | ||
| 1956 | — | — | ||
| 1955 | — | — | ||
| 1954 | — | — | ||
| 1953 | — | — | ||
| 1952 | — | #3,734 | 5 | |
| 1951 | — | — | ||
| 1950 | — | #3,681 | 5 | |
| 1949 | — | — | ||
| 1948 | — | — | ||
| 1947 | — | — | ||
| 1946 | — | — | ||
| 1945 | — | — | ||
| 1944 | — | — | ||
| 1943 | — | — | ||
| 1942 | — | — | ||
| 1941 | — | — | ||
| 1940 | — | — | ||
| 1939 | — | — | ||
| 1938 | — | — | ||
| 1937 | — | — | ||
| 1936 | — | — | ||
| 1935 | — | — | ||
| 1934 | — | — | ||
| 1933 | — | — | ||
| 1932 | — | — | ||
| 1931 | — | — | ||
| 1930 | — | — | ||
| 1929 | — | — | ||
| 1928 | — | — | ||
| 1927 | — | — | ||
| 1926 | — | — | ||
| 1925 | — | — | ||
| 1924 | — | — | ||
| 1923 | — | — | ||
| 1922 | — | — | ||
| 1921 | — | — | ||
| 1920 | — | — | ||
| 1919 | — | — | ||
| 1918 | — | — | ||
| 1917 | — | — | ||
| 1916 | — | — | ||
| 1915 | — | — | ||
| 1914 | — | — | ||
| 1913 | — | — | ||
| 1912 | — | — | ||
| 1911 | — | — | ||
| 1910 | — | — | ||
| 1909 | — | — | ||
| 1908 | — | — | ||
| 1907 | — | — | ||
| 1906 | — | — | ||
| 1905 | — | — | ||
| 1904 | — | — | ||
| 1903 | — | — | ||
| 1902 | — | — | ||
| 1901 | — | — | ||
| 1900 | — | — | ||
| 1899 | — | — | ||
| 1898 | — | — | ||
| 1897 | — | — | ||
| 1896 | — | — | ||
| 1895 | — | — | ||
| 1894 | — | — | ||
| 1893 | — | — | ||
| 1892 | — | — | ||
| 1891 | — | — | ||
| 1890 | — | — | ||
| 1889 | — | — | ||
| 1888 | — | — | ||
| 1887 | — | — | ||
| 1886 | — | — | ||
| 1885 | — | — | ||
| 1884 | — | — | ||
| 1883 | — | — | ||
| 1882 | — | — | ||
| 1881 | — | — | ||
| 1880 | — | — | ||
The first year at least five girls were named Ainsley! It came in at #5,309, and was given to 7 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1962–1969, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
Where Ainsley is popular in 2025
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Maine#153 · 1 in 445
- North Dakota#162 · 1 in 450
- Nebraska#200 · 1 in 645
- West Virginia#204 · 1 in 634
- Idaho#244 · 1 in 796
Best ever in a state: #84 in Vermont, 2020.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maine | #153 | 7 | 1 in 445 |
| North Dakota | #162 | 6 | 1 in 450 |
| Nebraska | #200 | 11 | 1 in 645 |
| West Virginia | #204 | 8 | 1 in 634 |
| Idaho | #244 | 9 | 1 in 796 |
| Kansas | #256 | 12 | 1 in 984 |
| Indiana | #258 | 27 | 1 in 1,034 |
| Louisiana | #295 | 15 | 1 in 1,091 |
| Arkansas | #301 | 10 | 1 in 1,059 |
| Mississippi | #301 | 9 | 1 in 989 |
| Wisconsin | #310 | 17 | 1 in 1,192 |
| Minnesota | #328 | 17 | 1 in 1,263 |
| Michigan | #330 | 27 | 1 in 1,323 |
| Illinois | #337 | 31 | 1 in 1,430 |
| Connecticut | #350 | 8 | 1 in 1,438 |
| Kentucky | #383 | 11 | 1 in 1,568 |
| Missouri | #386 | 15 | 1 in 1,620 |
| Virginia | #396 | 20 | 1 in 1,687 |
| Oklahoma | #398 | 10 | 1 in 1,478 |
| Colorado | #406 | 14 | 1 in 1,666 |
| Pennsylvania | #428 | 25 | 1 in 1,868 |
| Oregon | #429 | 8 | 1 in 1,632 |
| Ohio | #430 | 26 | 1 in 1,818 |
| Iowa | #492 | 6 | 1 in 1,962 |
| Tennessee | #497 | 15 | 1 in 2,138 |
| Massachusetts | #519 | 10 | 1 in 2,403 |
| Utah | #539 | 7 | 1 in 2,440 |
| Florida | #542 | 33 | 1 in 2,629 |
| Texas | #559 | 56 | 1 in 2,867 |
| North Carolina | #560 | 19 | 1 in 2,446 |
| Alabama | #574 | 8 | 1 in 2,290 |
| Maryland | #600 | 8 | 1 in 2,498 |
| Washington | #617 | 10 | 1 in 2,886 |
| California | #731 | 42 | 1 in 3,851 |
| New York | #731 | 22 | 1 in 3,560 |
| South Carolina | #773 | 5 | 1 in 3,658 |
| Arizona | #818 | 7 | 1 in 4,031 |
| New Jersey | #1,036 | 6 | 1 in 5,917 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Georgia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| New Mexico | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| Wyoming | — | — | — |
Ranks are within each state; “1 in N” is out of the girls born there that year. The SSA only publishes a name in a state when 5 or more babies of one sex got it.
See more about Ainsley
- 221 spots since 2024 (#704 → #483)
- 128 spots since 2020 (#355 → #483)
- Biggest jump: 998 spots in 2001
- Biggest drop: 143 spots in 2022
- Debuted 1961
- Peaked 2013 at #332 (974 births)
- Births halved by 2024, 11 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 25 yrs · run 2001–2025
- Highest: 1 in 1,785 girls born in 2014 were named Ainsley (0.06%)
- Latest: 1 in 2,588 girls born in 2025 (0.04%)
- Its best rank, #332 in 2013, was only 1 in 1,802 (0.06%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
- 43.8% of all girls named Ainsley (8,961) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 17 | #5,309 (1961) | #6,440 |
| 1970s | 99 | #4,420 (1979) | #5,909 |
| 1980s | 355 | #1,804 (1989) | #3,137 |
| 1990s | 814 | #1,508 (1998) | #1,839 |
| 2000s | 6,367 | #399 (2004) | #546 |
| 2010s | 8,961 | #332 (2013) | #364 |
| 2020s | 3,857 | #355 (2020) | #502 |
All figures count published births only (names given to at least 5 girls in a year). Registrations before 1937 are incomplete, so early shares and totals run low.
Want to check a specific year?
See where Ainsley ranked and which names it was up against. Click a point on the chart, or pick a year: