Amber
#520 for girls in 2025, 576 births · Last seen for boys in 2009 at #10,994
Given to girls 99.7% of the time
Showing
- Peak · girls
- 1986 · 16,954 births
- Debut · girls
- 9 births
- In top 100 · girls
- 31 yrsof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 374,690since 1880
Amber over time
girls
Rank among girls' names. Click any year to open it.
Hover or use arrow keys to read values by year; click or press Enter to open that year.
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 | #520 | 576 | — | |
| 2024 | #540 | 562 | — | |
| 2023 | #575 | 519 | — | |
| 2022 | #541 | 570 | — | |
| 2021 | #534 | 579 | — | |
| 2020 | #510 | 596 | — | |
| 2019 | #480 | 653 | — | |
| 2018 | #469 | 666 | — | |
| 2017 | #403 | 782 | — | |
| 2016 | #375 | 872 | — | |
| 2015 | #334 | 978 | — | |
| 2014 | #305 | 1,064 | — | |
| 2013 | #285 | 1,114 | — | |
| 2012 | #261 | 1,237 | — | |
| 2011 | #258 | 1,238 | — | |
| 2010 | #222 | 1,419 | — | |
| 2009 | #185 | 1,775 | #10,994 | 6 |
| 2008 | #165 | 2,063 | — | |
| 2007 | #145 | 2,405 | — | |
| 2006 | #136 | 2,588 | #10,662 | 6 |
| 2005 | #101 | 3,147 | #7,096 | 10 |
| 2004 | #87 | 3,639 | #4,129 | 21 |
| 2003 | #74 | 4,123 | #9,581 | 6 |
| 2002 | #65 | 4,723 | #10,667 | 5 |
| 2001 | #51 | 5,572 | #9,243 | 6 |
| 2000 | #47 | 6,182 | #6,316 | 10 |
| 1999 | #41 | 6,841 | #5,656 | 11 |
| 1998 | #37 | 7,930 | #5,840 | 10 |
| 1997 | #29 | 8,914 | #4,059 | 16 |
| 1996 | #27 | 9,771 | #3,549 | 19 |
| 1995 | #22 | 10,965 | #3,191 | 21 |
| 1994 | #21 | 12,343 | #3,326 | 20 |
| 1993 | #17 | 14,066 | #2,786 | 25 |
| 1992 | #19 | 13,917 | #2,834 | 24 |
| 1991 | #16 | 14,992 | #2,295 | 31 |
| 1990 | #15 | 15,866 | #1,809 | 43 |
| 1989 | #14 | 16,760 | #1,392 | 62 |
| 1988 | #15 | 16,676 | #1,307 | 62 |
| 1987 | #15 | 16,749 | #1,337 | 55 |
| 1986 | #13 | 16,954 | #1,334 | 54 |
| 1985 | #16 | 15,506 | #1,452 | 46 |
| 1984 | #18 | 15,369 | #1,320 | 50 |
| 1983 | #17 | 14,892 | #1,347 | 48 |
| 1982 | #18 | 14,678 | #1,342 | 49 |
| 1981 | #20 | 13,814 | #1,236 | 55 |
| 1980 | #22 | 12,553 | #1,410 | 45 |
| 1979 | #22 | 11,079 | #1,903 | 28 |
| 1978 | #30 | 8,174 | #1,652 | 33 |
| 1977 | #33 | 7,207 | #1,904 | 26 |
| 1976 | #49 | 5,646 | #2,946 | 13 |
| 1975 | #59 | 4,683 | #2,288 | 19 |
| 1974 | #92 | 3,273 | #2,946 | 12 |
| 1973 | #130 | 2,180 | #3,694 | 8 |
| 1972 | #161 | 1,812 | #3,152 | 10 |
| 1971 | #180 | 1,721 | #3,658 | 8 |
| 1970 | #243 | 1,288 | — | |
| 1969 | #277 | 1,026 | — | |
| 1968 | #293 | 887 | — | |
| 1967 | #358 | 627 | — | |
| 1966 | #400 | 528 | — | |
| 1965 | #404 | 525 | — | |
| 1964 | #445 | 479 | — | |
| 1963 | #484 | 401 | — | |
| 1962 | #498 | 377 | — | |
| 1961 | #535 | 335 | #4,065 | 5 |
| 1960 | #589 | 282 | — | |
| 1959 | #694 | 208 | — | |
| 1958 | #783 | 163 | — | |
| 1957 | #869 | 137 | — | |
| 1956 | #908 | 122 | — | |
| 1955 | #853 | 129 | — | |
| 1954 | #933 | 107 | — | |
| 1953 | #954 | 98 | — | |
| 1952 | #887 | 108 | — | |
| 1951 | #945 | 96 | — | |
| 1950 | #971 | 87 | — | |
| 1949 | #918 | 93 | — | |
| 1948 | #923 | 88 | — | |
| 1947 | #951 | 87 | — | |
| 1946 | #833 | 98 | — | |
| 1945 | #954 | 65 | — | |
| 1944 | #1,661 | 25 | — | |
| 1943 | #1,834 | 22 | — | |
| 1942 | #1,981 | 19 | — | |
| 1941 | #1,810 | 20 | — | |
| 1940 | #1,792 | 20 | — | |
| 1939 | #1,797 | 19 | — | |
| 1938 | #1,703 | 21 | — | |
| 1937 | #2,448 | 12 | — | |
| 1936 | #1,593 | 22 | — | |
| 1935 | #1,720 | 20 | — | |
| 1934 | #1,372 | 28 | — | |
| 1933 | #2,540 | 11 | — | |
| 1932 | #2,130 | 15 | — | |
| 1931 | #1,594 | 23 | — | |
| 1930 | #1,748 | 21 | — | |
| 1929 | #1,555 | 25 | — | |
| 1928 | #1,254 | 37 | — | |
| 1927 | #1,619 | 26 | — | |
| 1926 | #1,514 | 29 | — | |
| 1925 | #1,347 | 35 | — | |
| 1924 | #1,612 | 28 | — | |
| 1923 | #1,736 | 24 | — | |
| 1922 | #1,366 | 34 | — | |
| 1921 | #1,258 | 38 | — | |
| 1920 | #1,550 | 28 | — | |
| 1919 | #1,348 | 33 | — | |
| 1918 | #1,451 | 29 | — | |
| 1917 | #1,126 | 40 | — | |
| 1916 | #949 | 52 | — | |
| 1915 | #1,075 | 39 | — | |
| 1914 | #956 | 38 | — | |
| 1913 | #901 | 35 | — | |
| 1912 | #1,218 | 19 | — | |
| 1911 | #1,241 | 14 | — | |
| 1910 | #812 | 28 | — | |
| 1909 | #935 | 19 | — | |
| 1908 | #882 | 20 | — | |
| 1907 | #760 | 24 | — | |
| 1906 | #917 | 16 | — | |
| 1905 | #872 | 18 | — | |
| 1904 | #640 | 29 | — | |
| 1903 | #1,440 | 7 | — | |
| 1902 | #1,219 | 9 | — | |
| 1901 | #918 | 13 | — | |
| 1900 | #970 | 15 | — | |
| 1899 | #983 | 11 | — | |
| 1898 | #886 | 15 | — | |
| 1897 | #826 | 15 | — | |
| 1896 | #790 | 17 | — | |
| 1895 | #788 | 16 | — | |
| 1894 | #905 | 12 | — | |
| 1893 | #767 | 15 | — | |
| 1892 | #958 | 10 | — | |
| 1891 | #893 | 10 | — | |
| 1890 | #872 | 10 | — | |
| 1889 | #950 | 8 | — | |
| 1888 | #894 | 9 | — | |
| 1887 | #788 | 9 | — | |
| 1886 | — | — | ||
| 1885 | — | — | ||
| 1884 | #930 | 6 | — | |
| 1883 | — | — | ||
| 1882 | — | — | ||
| 1881 | #830 | 5 | — | |
| 1880 | #580 | 9 | — | |
First appearance
1880
In the first year the SSA published name data, Amber was already there! It came in at #580, and was given to 9 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1881–1883, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
Where Amber is popular in 1965
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
Top states · girls
- Oregon#245 · 1 in 1,224
- Colorado#246 · 1 in 1,135
- New Mexico#249 · 1 in 1,077
- Arizona#256 · 1 in 1,116
- Utah#261 · 1 in 1,233
Best ever in a state: #4 in Oklahoma, 1979.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon | #245 | 11 | 1 in 1,224 |
| Colorado | #246 | 14 | 1 in 1,135 |
| New Mexico | #249 | 9 | 1 in 1,077 |
| Arizona | #256 | 12 | 1 in 1,116 |
| Utah | #261 | 7 | 1 in 1,233 |
| West Virginia | #261 | 8 | 1 in 1,695 |
| Indiana | #296 | 20 | 1 in 2,149 |
| Minnesota | #317 | 11 | 1 in 2,854 |
| Washington | #321 | 12 | 1 in 1,847 |
| California | #328 | 83 | 1 in 1,948 |
| Ohio | #340 | 31 | 1 in 2,840 |
| Connecticut | #348 | 8 | 1 in 2,878 |
| Maryland | #349 | 10 | 1 in 2,821 |
| Illinois | #351 | 34 | 1 in 2,685 |
| Kentucky | #357 | 9 | 1 in 2,976 |
| Tennessee | #362 | 11 | 1 in 2,910 |
| Oklahoma | #364 | 7 | 1 in 2,432 |
| Virginia | #367 | 12 | 1 in 3,039 |
| Massachusetts | #375 | 11 | 1 in 4,295 |
| North Carolina | #391 | 13 | 1 in 3,215 |
| Kansas | #393 | 5 | 1 in 3,079 |
| Florida | #398 | 15 | 1 in 2,960 |
| Wisconsin | #399 | 8 | 1 in 4,579 |
| Texas | #404 | 38 | 1 in 2,524 |
| Iowa | #413 | 5 | 1 in 4,428 |
| Missouri | #422 | 9 | 1 in 4,047 |
| Michigan | #470 | 14 | 1 in 5,272 |
| Mississippi | #492 | 5 | 1 in 4,159 |
| Pennsylvania | #502 | 15 | 1 in 6,198 |
| Louisiana | #523 | 8 | 1 in 4,178 |
| Georgia | #572 | 7 | 1 in 5,835 |
| New Jersey | #591 | 7 | 1 in 7,693 |
| New York | #658 | 19 | 1 in 8,090 |
| Alabama | — | — | — |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arkansas | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Carolina | — | — | — |
| 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 Amber
Momentum · girls
Holding steady
- 20 spots since 2024 (#540 → #520)
- 10 spots since 2020 (#510 → #520)
- 186 spots since 2015 (#334 → #520)
- Biggest jump: 800 spots in 1904 (#1,440 → #640)
- Biggest drop: 429 spots in 1911 (#812 → #1,241)
Rise & fade · girls
106 yrs to peak
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1986 at #13 (16,954 births)
- Births halved by 1998, 12 yrs later
Top of the charts · girls
Top 100 for 31 yrs
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: 31 yrs · run 1974–2004
- Top 1,000: 109 yrs · run 1945–2025
Share of babies · girls
1 in 101
- Highest: 1 in 101 girls born in 1986 were named Amber (0.99%)
- Latest: 1 in 2,790 girls born in 2025 (0.04%)
Era · girls
The 1980s
- 41.1% of all girls named Amber (153,951) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 46 | #580 (1880) | #829 |
| 1890s | 131 | #767 (1893) | #867 |
| 1900s | 170 | #640 (1904) | #955 |
| 1910s | 327 | #812 (1910) | #1,108 |
| 1920s | 304 | #1,254 (1928) | #1,481 |
| 1930s | 192 | #1,372 (1934) | #1,865 |
| 1940s | 537 | #833 (1946) | #1,366 |
| 1950s | 1,255 | #694 (1959) | #880 |
| 1960s | 5,467 | #277 (1969) | #428 |
| 1970s | 47,063 | #22 (1979) | #100 |
| 1980s | 153,951 | #13 (1986) | #17 |
| 1990s | 115,605 | #15 (1990) | #24 |
| 2000s | 36,217 | #47 (2000) | #106 |
| 2010s | 10,023 | #222 (2010) | #339 |
| 2020s | 3,402 | #510 (2020) | #537 |
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.
Amber in 1965
girls
#404
525 births · 1 in 3,362 girls
Top girls' names in 1965
More about 1965
girls
1,765,164 girls got a published name in 1965; 1 in 3,362 of them was named Amber, which outranked 94.6% of the 7,535 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 16.0% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
Ranked beside Amber
Biggest movers since 1964
Risers
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.