Amanda
#493 for girls in 2025, 601 births · Last seen for boys in 2011 at #12,287
Given to girls 99.7% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 1980 · 35,811 births
- Debut · girls
- 241 births
- In top 100 · girls
- 46 yrsof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 790,638since 1880
Amanda over time
Rank among girls' names. Click any year to open it.
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 | #493 | 601 | — | |
| 2024 | #495 | 621 | — | |
| 2023 | #483 | 636 | — | |
| 2022 | #459 | 691 | — | |
| 2021 | #473 | 660 | — | |
| 2020 | #444 | 695 | — | |
| 2019 | #405 | 770 | — | |
| 2018 | #368 | 855 | — | |
| 2017 | #335 | 968 | — | |
| 2016 | #326 | 1,005 | — | |
| 2015 | #313 | 1,034 | — | |
| 2014 | #310 | 1,060 | — | |
| 2013 | #297 | 1,076 | — | |
| 2012 | #262 | 1,236 | — | |
| 2011 | #224 | 1,413 | #12,287 | 5 |
| 2010 | #188 | 1,664 | — | |
| 2009 | #165 | 1,963 | — | |
| 2008 | #137 | 2,451 | — | |
| 2007 | #111 | 3,051 | #10,921 | 6 |
| 2006 | #100 | 3,362 | #7,427 | 10 |
| 2005 | #79 | 4,099 | #7,640 | 9 |
| 2004 | #67 | 4,697 | #4,421 | 19 |
| 2003 | #54 | 5,354 | #7,245 | 9 |
| 2002 | #46 | 6,145 | #8,456 | 7 |
| 2001 | #39 | 6,980 | #6,013 | 11 |
| 2000 | #32 | 8,558 | #5,920 | 11 |
| 1999 | #22 | 9,750 | #4,537 | 15 |
| 1998 | #19 | 10,928 | #4,650 | 14 |
| 1997 | #16 | 12,243 | #3,064 | 24 |
| 1996 | #13 | 13,980 | #3,021 | 24 |
| 1995 | #9 | 16,354 | #2,400 | 32 |
| 1994 | #8 | 18,718 | #1,977 | 42 |
| 1993 | #8 | 20,811 | #2,209 | 35 |
| 1992 | #3 | 25,039 | #1,677 | 51 |
| 1991 | #4 | 28,896 | #1,545 | 56 |
| 1990 | #4 | 34,413 | #1,086 | 96 |
| 1989 | #4 | 36,834 | #870 | 134 |
| 1988 | #3 | 39,459 | #858 | 122 |
| 1987 | #3 | 41,786 | #844 | 123 |
| 1986 | #3 | 40,532 | #800 | 129 |
| 1985 | #4 | 39,055 | #740 | 143 |
| 1984 | #4 | 33,915 | #840 | 109 |
| 1983 | #3 | 33,749 | #862 | 103 |
| 1982 | #3 | 34,214 | #853 | 108 |
| 1981 | #3 | 34,372 | #890 | 100 |
| 1980 | #2 | 35,811 | #967 | 86 |
| 1979 | #3 | 31,924 | #826 | 111 |
| 1978 | #6 | 20,520 | #969 | 79 |
| 1977 | #9 | 18,278 | #1,099 | 62 |
| 1976 | #10 | 15,588 | #1,010 | 67 |
| 1975 | #14 | 12,657 | #1,280 | 45 |
| 1974 | #34 | 7,473 | #1,832 | 25 |
| 1973 | #51 | 5,625 | #2,124 | 19 |
| 1972 | #76 | 4,180 | #2,819 | 12 |
| 1971 | #84 | 4,130 | #2,973 | 11 |
| 1970 | #108 | 3,545 | #2,891 | 11 |
| 1969 | #122 | 2,815 | #2,217 | 15 |
| 1968 | #132 | 2,431 | #3,673 | 6 |
| 1967 | #131 | 2,660 | #2,352 | 12 |
| 1966 | #148 | 2,331 | #2,986 | 8 |
| 1965 | #201 | 1,649 | #3,930 | 5 |
| 1964 | #245 | 1,276 | — | |
| 1963 | #283 | 1,032 | #4,048 | 5 |
| 1962 | #300 | 948 | — | |
| 1961 | #283 | 1,056 | — | |
| 1960 | #296 | 978 | — | |
| 1959 | #317 | 858 | — | |
| 1958 | #335 | 791 | — | |
| 1957 | #351 | 670 | — | |
| 1956 | #346 | 639 | — | |
| 1955 | #415 | 453 | — | |
| 1954 | #419 | 428 | — | |
| 1953 | #418 | 427 | — | |
| 1952 | #414 | 416 | #3,734 | 5 |
| 1951 | #411 | 409 | — | |
| 1950 | #410 | 380 | — | |
| 1949 | #434 | 333 | — | |
| 1948 | #457 | 306 | — | |
| 1947 | #464 | 310 | — | |
| 1946 | #476 | 273 | — | |
| 1945 | #425 | 280 | — | |
| 1944 | #467 | 237 | — | |
| 1943 | #439 | 284 | — | |
| 1942 | #416 | 295 | — | |
| 1941 | #468 | 223 | — | |
| 1940 | #453 | 218 | — | |
| 1939 | #491 | 185 | — | |
| 1938 | #479 | 192 | — | |
| 1937 | #496 | 176 | — | |
| 1936 | #465 | 192 | — | |
| 1935 | #442 | 213 | — | |
| 1934 | #468 | 189 | — | |
| 1933 | #464 | 200 | — | |
| 1932 | #452 | 213 | — | |
| 1931 | #445 | 209 | — | |
| 1930 | #478 | 196 | — | |
| 1929 | #455 | 209 | — | |
| 1928 | #431 | 247 | — | |
| 1927 | #454 | 234 | — | |
| 1926 | #388 | 311 | — | |
| 1925 | #390 | 309 | — | |
| 1924 | #369 | 341 | — | |
| 1923 | #347 | 362 | — | |
| 1922 | #353 | 341 | — | |
| 1921 | #332 | 392 | — | |
| 1920 | #335 | 379 | — | |
| 1919 | #326 | 379 | — | |
| 1918 | #320 | 397 | — | |
| 1917 | #292 | 445 | — | |
| 1916 | #292 | 421 | — | |
| 1915 | #287 | 412 | — | |
| 1914 | #268 | 375 | — | |
| 1913 | #251 | 346 | — | |
| 1912 | #254 | 310 | — | |
| 1911 | #234 | 280 | — | |
| 1910 | #229 | 278 | — | |
| 1909 | #212 | 271 | — | |
| 1908 | #208 | 260 | — | |
| 1907 | #190 | 285 | — | |
| 1906 | #190 | 260 | — | |
| 1905 | #168 | 311 | — | |
| 1904 | #169 | 294 | — | |
| 1903 | #184 | 247 | — | |
| 1902 | #164 | 301 | — | |
| 1901 | #155 | 317 | — | |
| 1900 | #154 | 377 | — | |
| 1899 | #144 | 326 | #1,051 | 5 |
| 1898 | #137 | 371 | — | |
| 1897 | #136 | 354 | — | |
| 1896 | #129 | 367 | — | |
| 1895 | #115 | 431 | — | |
| 1894 | #112 | 418 | — | |
| 1893 | #113 | 387 | — | |
| 1892 | #102 | 455 | — | |
| 1891 | #105 | 371 | — | |
| 1890 | #104 | 392 | — | |
| 1889 | #97 | 413 | — | |
| 1888 | #97 | 404 | — | |
| 1887 | #96 | 338 | — | |
| 1886 | #91 | 370 | — | |
| 1885 | #90 | 339 | — | |
| 1884 | #92 | 337 | — | |
| 1883 | #94 | 287 | — | |
| 1882 | #91 | 288 | — | |
| 1881 | #87 | 263 | — | |
| 1880 | #89 | 241 | — | |
In the first year the SSA published name data, Amanda was already there! It came in at #89, and was given to 241 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1927–1941, when fewer than 250 girls a year got the name.
Where Amanda is popular in 1952
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- North Carolina#233 · 1 in 1,548
- Georgia#248 · 1 in 1,694
- Alabama#249 · 1 in 1,674
- Kentucky#275 · 1 in 2,406
- South Carolina#288 · 1 in 1,952
Best ever in a state: #1 in Kentucky, 1979.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| North Carolina | #233 | 33 | 1 in 1,548 |
| Georgia | #248 | 26 | 1 in 1,694 |
| Alabama | #249 | 22 | 1 in 1,674 |
| Kentucky | #275 | 14 | 1 in 2,406 |
| South Carolina | #288 | 15 | 1 in 1,952 |
| Oklahoma | #300 | 9 | 1 in 2,387 |
| Maryland | #305 | 9 | 1 in 2,895 |
| Louisiana | #309 | 17 | 1 in 2,090 |
| Mississippi | #314 | 12 | 1 in 2,349 |
| Tennessee | #314 | 13 | 1 in 2,849 |
| Indiana | #318 | 14 | 1 in 3,328 |
| Arkansas | #330 | 8 | 1 in 2,490 |
| Colorado | #331 | 6 | 1 in 2,709 |
| Virginia | #347 | 12 | 1 in 3,222 |
| Massachusetts | #355 | 8 | 1 in 6,040 |
| West Virginia | #360 | 6 | 1 in 3,701 |
| Texas | #380 | 36 | 1 in 2,959 |
| Missouri | #399 | 9 | 1 in 4,592 |
| Pennsylvania | #405 | 20 | 1 in 5,553 |
| Florida | #428 | 8 | 1 in 4,089 |
| California | #440 | 28 | 1 in 4,691 |
| Ohio | #444 | 14 | 1 in 6,785 |
| New Jersey | #445 | 7 | 1 in 6,945 |
| New York | #532 | 20 | 1 in 7,722 |
| Michigan | #539 | 9 | 1 in 8,978 |
| Illinois | #699 | 7 | 1 in 13,430 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arizona | — | — | — |
| Connecticut | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Iowa | — | — | — |
| Kansas | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Minnesota | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| New Mexico | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Oregon | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Utah | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| Washington | — | — | — |
| Wisconsin | — | — | — |
| 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 Amanda
- 2 spots since 2024 (#495 → #493)
- 49 spots since 2020 (#444 → #493)
- 180 spots since 2015 (#313 → #493)
- Biggest jump: 69 spots in 1956 (#415 → #346)
- Biggest drop: 66 spots in 1927 (#388 → #454)
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1980 at #2 (35,811 births)
- Births halved by 1995, 15 yrs later
- Top 10: 20 yrs · run 1976–1995
- Top 100: 46 yrs · run 1971–2006
- Top 1,000: 146 yrs · run 1880–2025
- Highest: 1 in 42 girls born in 1987 were named Amanda (2.4%)
- Latest: 1 in 2,674 girls born in 2025 (0.04%)
- Its best rank, #2 in 1980, was only 1 in 46 (2.2%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
- 46.8% of all girls named Amanda (369,727) were born in this decade
- Comeback: #87 (1881) → #496 (1937) → #2 (1980)
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 3,280 | #87 (1881) | #92 |
| 1890s | 3,872 | #102 (1892) | #120 |
| 1900s | 2,923 | #154 (1900) | #179 |
| 1910s | 3,643 | #229 (1910) | #275 |
| 1920s | 3,125 | #332 (1921) | #385 |
| 1930s | 1,965 | #442 (1935) | #468 |
| 1940s | 2,759 | #416 (1942) | #450 |
| 1950s | 5,471 | #317 (1959) | #384 |
| 1960s | 17,176 | #122 (1969) | #214 |
| 1970s | 123,920 | #3 (1979) | #40 |
| 1980s | 369,727 | #2 (1980) | #3 |
| 1990s | 191,132 | #3 (1992) | #11 |
| 2000s | 46,660 | #32 (2000) | #83 |
| 2010s | 11,081 | #188 (2010) | #303 |
| 2020s | 3,904 | #444 (2020) | #475 |
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.
Amanda in 1952
Top girls' names in 1952
Top boys' names in 1952
More about 1952
girls
1,854,335 girls got a published name in 1952; 1 in 4,458 of them was named Amanda, which outranked 93.5% of the 6,389 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 23.2% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
boys
1,943,633 boys got a published name in 1952; 1 in 388,727 of them was named Amanda, which outranked 12.3% of the 4,257 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 33.7% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
Tied with 523 names at #3,734; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.