Araceli
- #746 for girls in 2025, 364 births
- Last seen for boys in 1994 at #5,109
- Given to girls 99.3% of the time
Showing
- Peak · girls
- 2002 · 573 births
- Debut · girls
- 5 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 20,268since 1939
Araceli over time
girls
Rank among girls' names. Araceli has never cracked the top 400 here.
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 | #746 | 364 | — | |
| 2024 | #727 | 388 | — | |
| 2023 | #803 | 349 | — | |
| 2022 | #905 | 306 | — | |
| 2021 | #934 | 284 | — | |
| 2020 | #994 | 256 | — | |
| 2019 | #1,149 | 209 | — | |
| 2018 | #1,129 | 217 | — | |
| 2017 | #1,114 | 226 | — | |
| 2016 | #1,176 | 213 | — | |
| 2015 | #1,055 | 249 | — | |
| 2014 | #1,151 | 216 | — | |
| 2013 | #961 | 262 | — | |
| 2012 | #932 | 275 | — | |
| 2011 | #815 | 328 | — | |
| 2010 | #819 | 328 | — | |
| 2009 | #763 | 374 | — | |
| 2008 | #770 | 381 | — | |
| 2007 | #672 | 437 | — | |
| 2006 | #569 | 517 | — | |
| 2005 | #588 | 486 | — | |
| 2004 | #548 | 519 | — | |
| 2003 | #537 | 525 | — | |
| 2002 | #487 | 573 | — | |
| 2001 | #547 | 480 | — | |
| 2000 | #599 | 422 | — | |
| 1999 | #675 | 337 | — | |
| 1998 | #593 | 407 | — | |
| 1997 | #606 | 374 | — | |
| 1996 | #595 | 383 | — | |
| 1995 | #548 | 434 | — | |
| 1994 | #546 | 444 | #5,109 | 11 |
| 1993 | #552 | 431 | #8,700 | 5 |
| 1992 | #522 | 456 | — | |
| 1991 | #488 | 489 | #6,519 | 7 |
| 1990 | #555 | 424 | #6,415 | 7 |
| 1989 | #557 | 402 | #4,811 | 10 |
| 1988 | #675 | 286 | #7,270 | 5 |
| 1987 | #703 | 259 | #6,089 | 6 |
| 1986 | #610 | 315 | #6,721 | 5 |
| 1985 | #651 | 282 | #5,147 | 7 |
| 1984 | #605 | 295 | #4,973 | 7 |
| 1983 | #594 | 298 | #4,907 | 7 |
| 1982 | #532 | 367 | #5,619 | 6 |
| 1981 | #522 | 375 | #3,601 | 11 |
| 1980 | #536 | 351 | #4,940 | 7 |
| 1979 | #559 | 329 | — | |
| 1978 | #597 | 285 | #3,614 | 10 |
| 1977 | #568 | 310 | #4,164 | 8 |
| 1976 | #552 | 309 | — | |
| 1975 | #547 | 316 | — | |
| 1974 | #558 | 298 | #4,190 | 7 |
| 1973 | #642 | 234 | #4,054 | 7 |
| 1972 | #698 | 208 | — | |
| 1971 | #690 | 221 | — | |
| 1970 | #838 | 163 | — | |
| 1969 | #994 | 118 | #4,404 | 5 |
| 1968 | #934 | 122 | — | |
| 1967 | #1,209 | 77 | — | |
| 1966 | #1,312 | 68 | — | |
| 1965 | #1,252 | 74 | — | |
| 1964 | #1,281 | 75 | — | |
| 1963 | #1,464 | 58 | — | |
| 1962 | #1,627 | 48 | — | |
| 1961 | #1,612 | 49 | — | |
| 1960 | #1,447 | 58 | — | |
| 1959 | #1,672 | 43 | — | |
| 1958 | #1,762 | 38 | — | |
| 1957 | #2,347 | 23 | — | |
| 1956 | #1,796 | 35 | — | |
| 1955 | #2,472 | 20 | — | |
| 1954 | #2,779 | 16 | — | |
| 1953 | #3,955 | 9 | — | |
| 1952 | #2,806 | 15 | — | |
| 1951 | #4,011 | 8 | — | |
| 1950 | #3,662 | 9 | — | |
| 1949 | #3,393 | 10 | — | |
| 1948 | #4,205 | 7 | — | |
| 1947 | #4,764 | 6 | — | |
| 1946 | #4,417 | 6 | — | |
| 1945 | — | — | ||
| 1944 | — | — | ||
| 1943 | — | — | ||
| 1942 | #4,622 | 5 | — | |
| 1941 | — | — | ||
| 1940 | — | — | ||
| 1939 | #4,250 | 5 | — | |
| 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 | — | — | ||
First appearance
1939
The first year at least five girls were named Araceli! It came in at #4,250, and was given to 5 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1939–1945, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
Where Araceli 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.
Top states · girls
- New Mexico#130 · 1 in 425
- Oregon#298 · 1 in 1,088
- Arizona#372 · 1 in 1,568
- California#404 · 1 in 1,997
- Texas#422 · 1 in 2,007
Best ever in a state: #130 in New Mexico, 2025.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| New Mexico | #130 | 11 | 1 in 425 |
| Oregon | #298 | 12 | 1 in 1,088 |
| Arizona | #372 | 18 | 1 in 1,568 |
| California | #404 | 81 | 1 in 1,997 |
| Texas | #422 | 80 | 1 in 2,007 |
| Colorado | #428 | 13 | 1 in 1,794 |
| Nevada | #433 | 6 | 1 in 1,534 |
| Oklahoma | #483 | 8 | 1 in 1,848 |
| Washington | #511 | 13 | 1 in 2,220 |
| Utah | #704 | 5 | 1 in 3,415 |
| Missouri | #811 | 6 | 1 in 4,050 |
| North Carolina | #834 | 11 | 1 in 4,226 |
| Indiana | #1,032 | 5 | 1 in 5,582 |
| Ohio | #1,134 | 7 | 1 in 6,753 |
| Virginia | #1,180 | 5 | 1 in 6,748 |
| Florida | #1,243 | 11 | 1 in 7,887 |
| New York | #1,312 | 10 | 1 in 7,833 |
| Illinois | #1,405 | 5 | 1 in 8,866 |
| Alabama | — | — | — |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arkansas | — | — | — |
| Connecticut | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Georgia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Iowa | — | — | — |
| Kansas | — | — | — |
| Kentucky | — | — | — |
| Louisiana | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Maryland | — | — | — |
| Massachusetts | — | — | — |
| Michigan | — | — | — |
| Minnesota | — | — | — |
| Mississippi | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| New Jersey | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Pennsylvania | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Carolina | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Tennessee | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| West Virginia | — | — | — |
| 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 Araceli
Momentum · girls
Rising
- 19 spots since 2024 (#727 → #746)
- 248 spots since 2020 (#994 → #746)
- Biggest jump: 275 spots in 1968
- Biggest drop: 190 spots in 2014
Rise & fade · girls
63 yrs to peak
- Debuted 1939
- Peaked 2002 at #487 (573 births)
- Births halved by 2012, 10 yrs later
Top of the charts · girls
Top 1,000 for 52 yrs
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 52 yrs · run 1968–2013
Share of babies · girls
1 in 3,136
- Highest: 1 in 3,136 girls born in 2002 were named Araceli (0.03%)
- Latest: 1 in 4,416 girls born in 2025 (0.02%)
Era · girls
The 2000s
- 23.3% of all girls named Araceli (4,714) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1930s | 5 | #4,250 (1939) | #4,250 |
| 1940s | 34 | #3,393 (1949) | #4,280 |
| 1950s | 216 | #1,672 (1959) | #2,726 |
| 1960s | 747 | #934 (1968) | #1,313 |
| 1970s | 2,673 | #547 (1975) | #625 |
| 1980s | 3,230 | #522 (1981) | #599 |
| 1990s | 4,179 | #488 (1991) | #568 |
| 2000s | 4,714 | #487 (2002) | #608 |
| 2010s | 2,523 | #815 (2011) | #1,030 |
| 2020s | 1,947 | #727 (2024) | #852 |
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 Araceli ranked and which names it was up against. Click a point on the chart, or pick a year: