Aracely
#1,427 for girls in 2025, 151 births · Last seen for boys in 1993 at #7,638
Given to girls 99.9% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 2003 · 482 births
- Debut · girls
- 5 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 9,906since 1956
Aracely over time
Rank among girls' names. Aracely has never cracked the top 500 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 | #1,427 | 151 | — | |
| 2024 | #1,317 | 174 | — | |
| 2023 | #1,548 | 137 | — | |
| 2022 | #1,521 | 141 | — | |
| 2021 | #1,652 | 126 | — | |
| 2020 | #1,769 | 112 | — | |
| 2019 | #1,629 | 130 | — | |
| 2018 | #1,741 | 118 | — | |
| 2017 | #1,591 | 137 | — | |
| 2016 | #1,667 | 128 | — | |
| 2015 | #1,493 | 153 | — | |
| 2014 | #1,479 | 151 | — | |
| 2013 | #1,362 | 171 | — | |
| 2012 | #1,269 | 189 | — | |
| 2011 | #1,041 | 239 | — | |
| 2010 | #988 | 256 | — | |
| 2009 | #859 | 324 | — | |
| 2008 | #875 | 318 | — | |
| 2007 | #832 | 345 | — | |
| 2006 | #726 | 387 | — | |
| 2005 | #734 | 368 | — | |
| 2004 | #719 | 370 | — | |
| 2003 | #575 | 482 | — | |
| 2002 | #660 | 385 | — | |
| 2001 | #661 | 380 | — | |
| 2000 | #913 | 239 | — | |
| 1999 | #1,094 | 182 | — | |
| 1998 | #1,127 | 169 | — | |
| 1997 | #1,249 | 142 | — | |
| 1996 | #1,100 | 167 | — | |
| 1995 | #1,251 | 136 | — | |
| 1994 | #1,077 | 167 | — | |
| 1993 | #1,070 | 170 | #7,638 | 6 |
| 1992 | #1,085 | 166 | — | |
| 1991 | #994 | 188 | — | |
| 1990 | #1,186 | 144 | — | |
| 1989 | #1,080 | 156 | — | |
| 1988 | #1,181 | 128 | — | |
| 1987 | #1,411 | 94 | — | |
| 1986 | #1,327 | 99 | — | |
| 1985 | #1,178 | 120 | — | |
| 1984 | #1,216 | 107 | — | |
| 1983 | #1,150 | 115 | — | |
| 1982 | #1,243 | 105 | — | |
| 1981 | #1,277 | 100 | — | |
| 1980 | #1,068 | 132 | — | |
| 1979 | #1,198 | 109 | — | |
| 1978 | #1,255 | 98 | — | |
| 1977 | #1,429 | 78 | — | |
| 1976 | #1,330 | 81 | #5,587 | 5 |
| 1975 | #1,145 | 101 | — | |
| 1974 | #1,284 | 83 | — | |
| 1973 | #1,510 | 62 | — | |
| 1972 | #1,337 | 75 | — | |
| 1971 | #1,625 | 57 | — | |
| 1970 | #1,781 | 50 | — | |
| 1969 | #2,585 | 26 | — | |
| 1968 | #2,091 | 33 | — | |
| 1967 | #2,167 | 30 | — | |
| 1966 | #2,839 | 19 | — | |
| 1965 | #3,050 | 17 | — | |
| 1964 | #3,515 | 14 | — | |
| 1963 | #3,635 | 13 | — | |
| 1962 | #5,293 | 7 | — | |
| 1961 | #3,189 | 16 | — | |
| 1960 | #4,184 | 10 | — | |
| 1959 | #4,031 | 10 | — | |
| 1958 | #4,193 | 9 | — | |
| 1957 | #6,086 | 5 | — | |
| 1956 | #5,952 | 5 | — | |
| 1955 | — | — | ||
| 1954 | — | — | ||
| 1953 | — | — | ||
| 1952 | — | — | ||
| 1951 | — | — | ||
| 1950 | — | — | ||
| 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 Aracely! It came in at #5,952, and was given to 5 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1956–1957, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
Where Aracely is popular in 1992
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Texas#449 · 1 in 2,866
- Arizona#465 · 1 in 2,619
- California#556 · 1 in 3,777
- Illinois#724 · 1 in 5,791
Best ever in a state: #227 in New Mexico, 2003.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas | #449 | 48 | 1 in 2,866 |
| Arizona | #465 | 10 | 1 in 2,619 |
| California | #556 | 68 | 1 in 3,777 |
| Illinois | #724 | 13 | 1 in 5,791 |
| Alabama | — | — | — |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arkansas | — | — | — |
| Colorado | — | — | — |
| Connecticut | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Florida | — | — | — |
| Georgia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Indiana | — | — | — |
| Iowa | — | — | — |
| Kansas | — | — | — |
| Kentucky | — | — | — |
| Louisiana | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Maryland | — | — | — |
| Massachusetts | — | — | — |
| Michigan | — | — | — |
| Minnesota | — | — | — |
| Mississippi | — | — | — |
| Missouri | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| New Jersey | — | — | — |
| New Mexico | — | — | — |
| New York | — | — | — |
| North Carolina | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Ohio | — | — | — |
| Oklahoma | — | — | — |
| Oregon | — | — | — |
| Pennsylvania | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Carolina | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Tennessee | — | — | — |
| Utah | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| Virginia | — | — | — |
| Washington | — | — | — |
| 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 Aracely
- 110 spots since 2024 (#1,317 → #1,427)
- 342 spots since 2020 (#1,769 → #1,427)
- 66 spots since 2015 (#1,493 → #1,427)
- Biggest jump: 252 spots in 2001 (#913 → #661)
- Biggest drop: 144 spots in 2004 (#575 → #719)
- Debuted 1956
- Peaked 2003 at #575 (482 births)
- Births halved by 2011, 8 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 12 yrs · run 2000–2010
- Highest: 1 in 3,791 girls born in 2003 were named Aracely (0.03%)
- Latest: 1 in 10,644 girls born in 2025 (0.01%)
- 36.3% of all girls named Aracely (3,598) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1950s | 29 | #4,031 (1959) | #5,066 |
| 1960s | 185 | #2,091 (1968) | #3,255 |
| 1970s | 794 | #1,145 (1975) | #1,389 |
| 1980s | 1,156 | #1,068 (1980) | #1,213 |
| 1990s | 1,631 | #994 (1991) | #1,123 |
| 2000s | 3,598 | #575 (2003) | #755 |
| 2010s | 1,672 | #988 (2010) | #1,426 |
| 2020s | 841 | #1,317 (2024) | #1,539 |
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.
Aracely in 1992
Top girls' names in 1992
More about 1992
girls
1,843,931 girls got a published name in 1992; 1 in 11,108 of them was named Aracely, which outranked 93.0% of the 15,610 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 13.8% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
- #1,082Christal167
- #1,082Kayli167
- #1,082Maddison167
- #1,085Aracely166
- #1,085Layla166
- #1,085Mattie166
- #1,085Nicolle166
- #1,090Angelic165
- #1,090Angeline165
- #1,090Aundrea165
Tied with 4 names at #1,085; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.