Davis
- #5,099 for girls in 2025, 25 births
- #668 for boys in 2025, 409 births
- Given to boys 96.9% of the time
Showing
- Peak · boys
- 1901 · 29 births
- Debut · boys
- 17 births
- In top 100 · boys
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · boys
- 32,076since 1880
Davis over time
boys
Rank among boys' names. Davis has never cracked the top 300 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 | #5,099 | 25 | #668 | 409 |
| 2024 | #6,167 | 19 | #644 | 432 |
| 2023 | #5,390 | 23 | #614 | 456 |
| 2022 | #4,041 | 36 | #632 | 441 |
| 2021 | #6,174 | 19 | #557 | 507 |
| 2020 | #4,078 | 34 | #553 | 511 |
| 2019 | #5,306 | 24 | #538 | 529 |
| 2018 | #4,458 | 31 | #507 | 561 |
| 2017 | #4,220 | 34 | #492 | 587 |
| 2016 | #4,990 | 27 | #490 | 620 |
| 2015 | #5,458 | 24 | #474 | 629 |
| 2014 | #5,625 | 23 | #447 | 666 |
| 2013 | #6,462 | 19 | #443 | 648 |
| 2012 | #4,601 | 31 | #416 | 685 |
| 2011 | #7,783 | 15 | #435 | 628 |
| 2010 | #7,217 | 17 | #420 | 657 |
| 2009 | #8,888 | 13 | #427 | 665 |
| 2008 | #7,742 | 16 | #408 | 725 |
| 2007 | #7,394 | 17 | #395 | 756 |
| 2006 | #6,840 | 18 | #404 | 732 |
| 2005 | #6,528 | 18 | #394 | 730 |
| 2004 | #4,949 | 26 | #374 | 743 |
| 2003 | #6,055 | 19 | #370 | 704 |
| 2002 | #6,129 | 18 | #390 | 667 |
| 2001 | #6,322 | 17 | #362 | 733 |
| 2000 | #4,527 | 26 | #381 | 681 |
| 1999 | #5,896 | 17 | #371 | 704 |
| 1998 | #7,532 | 12 | #375 | 677 |
| 1997 | #6,163 | 15 | #376 | 645 |
| 1996 | #4,739 | 21 | #409 | 567 |
| 1995 | #10,514 | 7 | #409 | 560 |
| 1994 | #7,097 | 12 | #424 | 542 |
| 1993 | #7,038 | 12 | #460 | 457 |
| 1992 | #8,065 | 10 | #512 | 392 |
| 1991 | #7,987 | 10 | #590 | 297 |
| 1990 | #7,303 | 11 | #597 | 281 |
| 1989 | #8,761 | 8 | #570 | 290 |
| 1988 | #7,691 | 9 | #559 | 272 |
| 1987 | #11,325 | 5 | #574 | 250 |
| 1986 | #9,545 | 6 | #575 | 240 |
| 1985 | — | #651 | 181 | |
| 1984 | — | #647 | 178 | |
| 1983 | — | #682 | 157 | |
| 1982 | — | #665 | 172 | |
| 1981 | #10,411 | 5 | #682 | 161 |
| 1980 | #9,095 | 6 | #741 | 140 |
| 1979 | — | #747 | 134 | |
| 1978 | — | #760 | 123 | |
| 1977 | #9,652 | 5 | #805 | 113 |
| 1976 | — | #776 | 114 | |
| 1975 | #7,984 | 6 | #831 | 100 |
| 1974 | — | #867 | 85 | |
| 1973 | #6,666 | 7 | #796 | 99 |
| 1972 | — | #822 | 95 | |
| 1971 | — | #755 | 118 | |
| 1970 | — | #714 | 132 | |
| 1969 | — | #782 | 97 | |
| 1968 | #7,016 | 5 | #746 | 99 |
| 1967 | #6,042 | 6 | #692 | 115 |
| 1966 | — | #713 | 108 | |
| 1965 | — | #688 | 117 | |
| 1964 | — | #742 | 107 | |
| 1963 | #6,592 | 5 | #698 | 123 |
| 1962 | — | #725 | 112 | |
| 1961 | — | #668 | 138 | |
| 1960 | — | #672 | 135 | |
| 1959 | — | #653 | 138 | |
| 1958 | #6,103 | 5 | #654 | 138 |
| 1957 | #5,377 | 6 | #689 | 123 |
| 1956 | — | #648 | 137 | |
| 1955 | — | #599 | 151 | |
| 1954 | — | #614 | 144 | |
| 1953 | — | #631 | 128 | |
| 1952 | #5,563 | 5 | #586 | 142 |
| 1951 | — | #577 | 144 | |
| 1950 | #5,301 | 5 | #610 | 126 |
| 1949 | #3,393 | 10 | #535 | 154 |
| 1948 | — | #523 | 160 | |
| 1947 | — | #556 | 147 | |
| 1946 | — | #529 | 146 | |
| 1945 | — | #533 | 125 | |
| 1944 | #4,054 | 6 | #633 | 94 |
| 1943 | — | #550 | 130 | |
| 1942 | #3,444 | 8 | #556 | 122 |
| 1941 | #3,030 | 9 | #571 | 108 |
| 1940 | — | #541 | 118 | |
| 1939 | — | #536 | 114 | |
| 1938 | — | #527 | 122 | |
| 1937 | — | #536 | 117 | |
| 1936 | — | #510 | 122 | |
| 1935 | #3,156 | 8 | #566 | 104 |
| 1934 | — | #545 | 117 | |
| 1933 | #3,109 | 8 | #591 | 96 |
| 1932 | #4,411 | 5 | #556 | 113 |
| 1931 | #4,331 | 5 | #529 | 120 |
| 1930 | #2,845 | 10 | #572 | 109 |
| 1929 | #2,921 | 10 | #564 | 110 |
| 1928 | #2,768 | 11 | #518 | 135 |
| 1927 | #2,095 | 18 | #508 | 142 |
| 1926 | #1,883 | 21 | #552 | 122 |
| 1925 | #2,283 | 16 | #516 | 140 |
| 1924 | #2,514 | 14 | #465 | 174 |
| 1923 | #3,641 | 8 | #554 | 125 |
| 1922 | #2,780 | 12 | #526 | 140 |
| 1921 | #3,400 | 9 | #521 | 142 |
| 1920 | #3,957 | 7 | #576 | 117 |
| 1919 | — | #486 | 150 | |
| 1918 | — | #519 | 133 | |
| 1917 | #3,092 | 9 | #549 | 114 |
| 1916 | #3,552 | 7 | #534 | 115 |
| 1915 | #2,900 | 9 | #550 | 104 |
| 1914 | #2,638 | 8 | #555 | 80 |
| 1913 | — | #597 | 54 | |
| 1912 | — | #592 | 47 | |
| 1911 | — | #533 | 31 | |
| 1910 | — | #430 | 40 | |
| 1909 | — | #615 | 19 | |
| 1908 | — | #566 | 20 | |
| 1907 | — | #559 | 19 | |
| 1906 | — | #363 | 33 | |
| 1905 | — | #491 | 21 | |
| 1904 | — | #431 | 24 | |
| 1903 | — | #430 | 22 | |
| 1902 | — | #862 | 8 | |
| 1901 | — | #334 | 29 | |
| 1900 | — | #534 | 20 | |
| 1899 | — | #583 | 12 | |
| 1898 | — | #573 | 14 | |
| 1897 | — | #652 | 11 | |
| 1896 | — | #424 | 21 | |
| 1895 | — | #556 | 14 | |
| 1894 | — | #594 | 12 | |
| 1893 | — | #459 | 16 | |
| 1892 | — | #422 | 20 | |
| 1891 | — | #441 | 16 | |
| 1890 | — | #405 | 20 | |
| 1889 | — | #388 | 21 | |
| 1888 | — | #430 | 19 | |
| 1887 | — | #516 | 12 | |
| 1886 | — | #417 | 18 | |
| 1885 | — | #388 | 21 | |
| 1884 | — | #570 | 11 | |
| 1883 | — | #556 | 11 | |
| 1882 | — | #652 | 9 | |
| 1881 | — | #487 | 13 | |
| 1880 | — | #425 | 17 | |
First appearance
1880
In the first year the SSA published name data, Davis was already there! It came in at #425, and was given to 17 baby boys.
Quietest stretch: 1902, when fewer than 9 boys a year got the name.
Where Davis 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 · boys
- Alabama#260 · 1 in 1,025
- Mississippi#312 · 1 in 1,084
- North Carolina#330 · 1 in 1,471
- Utah#351 · 1 in 1,513
- Tennessee#359 · 1 in 1,599
Best ever in a state: #120 in North Carolina, 2005.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | #260 | 21 | 1 in 1,025 |
| Mississippi | #312 | 10 | 1 in 1,084 |
| North Carolina | #330 | 35 | 1 in 1,471 |
| Utah | #351 | 13 | 1 in 1,513 |
| Tennessee | #359 | 23 | 1 in 1,599 |
| Louisiana | #426 | 11 | 1 in 1,739 |
| Georgia | #428 | 26 | 1 in 1,932 |
| South Carolina | #438 | 11 | 1 in 1,927 |
| Kansas | #524 | 6 | 1 in 2,341 |
| Kentucky | #526 | 8 | 1 in 2,567 |
| Colorado | #535 | 10 | 1 in 2,685 |
| Indiana | #545 | 12 | 1 in 2,639 |
| Oklahoma | #552 | 7 | 1 in 2,526 |
| Arkansas | #555 | 5 | 1 in 2,517 |
| Iowa | #571 | 5 | 1 in 2,766 |
| Oregon | #604 | 5 | 1 in 3,012 |
| Missouri | #648 | 8 | 1 in 3,476 |
| Ohio | #650 | 14 | 1 in 3,752 |
| Texas | #661 | 45 | 1 in 3,890 |
| Illinois | #677 | 13 | 1 in 3,812 |
| Virginia | #727 | 9 | 1 in 4,139 |
| Massachusetts | #789 | 5 | 1 in 5,404 |
| California | #797 | 31 | 1 in 5,660 |
| Minnesota | #807 | 5 | 1 in 4,900 |
| Michigan | #829 | 8 | 1 in 5,024 |
| Arizona | #844 | 6 | 1 in 5,454 |
| Washington | #898 | 6 | 1 in 5,466 |
| Florida | #958 | 14 | 1 in 6,824 |
| New York | #1,576 | 6 | 1 in 14,070 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Connecticut | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Maryland | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| New Jersey | — | — | — |
| New Mexico | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Pennsylvania | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| West Virginia | — | — | — |
| Wisconsin | — | — | — |
| Wyoming | — | — | — |
Ranks are within each state; “1 in N” is out of the boys 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 Davis
Momentum · boys
Holding steady
- 115 spots since 2020 (#553 → #668)
- Biggest jump: 432 spots in 1903
- Biggest drop: 528 spots in 1902
Rise & fade · boys
21 yrs to peak
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1901 at #334 (29 births)
- Births halved by 1902, 1 yr later
Top of the charts · boys
Top 1,000 for 146 yrs
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 146 yrs · run 1880–2025
Share of babies · boys
1 in 2,651
- Highest: 1 in 2,651 boys born in 2001 were named Davis (0.04%)
- Latest: 1 in 4,176 boys born in 2025 (0.02%)
- Its best rank, #334 in 1901, was only 1 in 3,671 (0.03%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
Era · boys
The 2000s
- 22.2% of all boys named Davis (7,136) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 152 | #388 (1885) | #483 |
| 1890s | 156 | #405 (1890) | #511 |
| 1900s | 215 | #334 (1901) | #519 |
| 1910s | 868 | #430 (1910) | #535 |
| 1920s | 1,347 | #465 (1924) | #530 |
| 1930s | 1,134 | #510 (1936) | #547 |
| 1940s | 1,304 | #523 (1948) | #553 |
| 1950s | 1,371 | #577 (1951) | #626 |
| 1960s | 1,151 | #668 (1961) | #713 |
| 1970s | 1,113 | #714 (1970) | #787 |
| 1980s | 2,041 | #559 (1988) | #635 |
| 1990s | 5,122 | #371 (1999) | #452 |
| 2000s | 7,136 | #362 (2001) | #391 |
| 2010s | 6,210 | #416 (2012) | #466 |
| 2020s | 2,756 | #553 (2020) | #611 |
All figures count published births only (names given to at least 5 boys in a year). Registrations before 1937 are incomplete, so early shares and totals run low.
Want to check a specific year?
See where Davis ranked and which names it was up against. Click a point on the chart, or pick a year: