Emily
#34 for girls in 2025, 5,451 births · #7,679 for boys in 2025, 10 births
Given to girls 99.8% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 1999 · 26,542 births
- Debut · girls
- 210 births
- In top 100 · girls
- 81 yrsof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 896,487since 1880
Emily 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 | #34 | 5,451 | #7,679 | 10 |
| 2024 | #25 | 5,984 | #7,765 | 10 |
| 2023 | #19 | 6,177 | #8,255 | 9 |
| 2022 | #17 | 6,498 | — | |
| 2021 | #21 | 6,594 | #10,799 | 6 |
| 2020 | #18 | 6,918 | #7,034 | 11 |
| 2019 | #12 | 8,259 | #8,889 | 8 |
| 2018 | #12 | 8,718 | #7,136 | 11 |
| 2017 | #12 | 9,817 | #12,246 | 5 |
| 2016 | #9 | 11,006 | #9,664 | 7 |
| 2015 | #8 | 11,808 | #5,289 | 17 |
| 2014 | #7 | 12,670 | #7,048 | 11 |
| 2013 | #7 | 13,144 | #4,621 | 20 |
| 2012 | #6 | 13,666 | #4,533 | 21 |
| 2011 | #6 | 14,277 | #7,009 | 11 |
| 2010 | #6 | 14,281 | #4,678 | 20 |
| 2009 | #6 | 15,366 | #4,922 | 19 |
| 2008 | #3 | 17,448 | #3,921 | 26 |
| 2007 | #1 | 19,367 | #3,793 | 27 |
| 2006 | #1 | 21,412 | #3,384 | 31 |
| 2005 | #1 | 23,952 | #3,091 | 33 |
| 2004 | #1 | 25,042 | #1,251 | 120 |
| 2003 | #1 | 25,693 | #2,507 | 41 |
| 2002 | #1 | 24,470 | #2,755 | 34 |
| 2001 | #1 | 25,059 | #2,864 | 32 |
| 2000 | #1 | 25,959 | #2,922 | 30 |
| 1999 | #1 | 26,542 | #2,098 | 45 |
| 1998 | #1 | 26,188 | #2,312 | 38 |
| 1997 | #1 | 25,734 | #2,347 | 35 |
| 1996 | #1 | 25,150 | #2,332 | 34 |
| 1995 | #3 | 24,382 | #2,055 | 40 |
| 1994 | #3 | 24,154 | #2,444 | 31 |
| 1993 | #5 | 23,596 | #1,907 | 43 |
| 1992 | #7 | 21,835 | #2,362 | 31 |
| 1991 | #10 | 20,311 | #2,143 | 34 |
| 1990 | #12 | 19,370 | #1,564 | 53 |
| 1989 | #13 | 17,323 | #1,173 | 82 |
| 1988 | #18 | 15,869 | #1,373 | 57 |
| 1987 | #19 | 14,710 | #1,425 | 51 |
| 1986 | #24 | 13,236 | #1,286 | 57 |
| 1985 | #24 | 13,144 | #1,429 | 47 |
| 1984 | #24 | 12,786 | #1,265 | 53 |
| 1983 | #25 | 12,377 | #1,429 | 44 |
| 1982 | #24 | 12,519 | #1,254 | 55 |
| 1981 | #29 | 10,799 | #1,362 | 48 |
| 1980 | #31 | 9,001 | #1,726 | 33 |
| 1979 | #34 | 7,971 | #1,943 | 27 |
| 1978 | #33 | 7,473 | #2,205 | 21 |
| 1977 | #37 | 6,879 | #2,556 | 17 |
| 1976 | #50 | 5,547 | #2,245 | 20 |
| 1975 | #48 | 5,482 | #2,540 | 16 |
| 1974 | #69 | 4,329 | #2,277 | 18 |
| 1973 | #99 | 3,027 | #2,716 | 13 |
| 1972 | #131 | 2,334 | #3,152 | 10 |
| 1971 | #166 | 1,866 | — | |
| 1970 | #173 | 1,931 | #4,230 | 6 |
| 1969 | #198 | 1,575 | — | |
| 1968 | #225 | 1,326 | — | |
| 1967 | #239 | 1,204 | #3,966 | 5 |
| 1966 | #237 | 1,249 | — | |
| 1965 | #238 | 1,288 | — | |
| 1964 | #268 | 1,131 | — | |
| 1963 | #269 | 1,108 | — | |
| 1962 | #273 | 1,079 | — | |
| 1961 | #265 | 1,147 | — | |
| 1960 | #251 | 1,225 | — | |
| 1959 | #251 | 1,213 | — | |
| 1958 | #254 | 1,171 | — | |
| 1957 | #246 | 1,207 | — | |
| 1956 | #230 | 1,282 | #3,216 | 7 |
| 1955 | #223 | 1,304 | — | |
| 1954 | #218 | 1,342 | — | |
| 1953 | #220 | 1,325 | — | |
| 1952 | #207 | 1,392 | — | |
| 1951 | #212 | 1,287 | — | |
| 1950 | #203 | 1,316 | #3,021 | 7 |
| 1949 | #196 | 1,392 | — | |
| 1948 | #194 | 1,391 | — | |
| 1947 | #187 | 1,470 | — | |
| 1946 | #186 | 1,379 | #3,525 | 5 |
| 1945 | #181 | 1,134 | #2,743 | 7 |
| 1944 | #170 | 1,251 | — | |
| 1943 | #174 | 1,336 | — | |
| 1942 | #164 | 1,419 | #2,940 | 7 |
| 1941 | #162 | 1,368 | #2,491 | 9 |
| 1940 | #164 | 1,269 | #3,459 | 5 |
| 1939 | #163 | 1,292 | #2,609 | 8 |
| 1938 | #164 | 1,308 | #2,868 | 7 |
| 1937 | #161 | 1,293 | #3,518 | 5 |
| 1936 | #171 | 1,123 | #2,854 | 7 |
| 1935 | #173 | 1,094 | — | |
| 1934 | #175 | 1,067 | — | |
| 1933 | #171 | 1,062 | — | |
| 1932 | #168 | 1,147 | #2,849 | 8 |
| 1931 | #159 | 1,186 | #2,864 | 8 |
| 1930 | #154 | 1,344 | #2,609 | 10 |
| 1929 | #151 | 1,444 | #3,559 | 6 |
| 1928 | #150 | 1,559 | — | |
| 1927 | #146 | 1,656 | #2,523 | 11 |
| 1926 | #142 | 1,729 | #3,708 | 6 |
| 1925 | #145 | 1,767 | #4,197 | 5 |
| 1924 | #136 | 2,044 | #3,505 | 7 |
| 1923 | #128 | 2,057 | #4,239 | 5 |
| 1922 | #121 | 2,146 | — | |
| 1921 | #121 | 2,184 | #3,869 | 6 |
| 1920 | #119 | 2,168 | #3,489 | 7 |
| 1919 | #105 | 2,307 | #3,736 | 6 |
| 1918 | #105 | 2,361 | — | |
| 1917 | #103 | 2,220 | — | |
| 1916 | #100 | 2,213 | #3,897 | 5 |
| 1915 | #99 | 2,091 | — | |
| 1914 | #98 | 1,650 | — | |
| 1913 | #99 | 1,386 | — | |
| 1912 | #105 | 1,147 | #2,269 | 6 |
| 1911 | #103 | 909 | — | |
| 1910 | #110 | 785 | — | |
| 1909 | #103 | 749 | — | |
| 1908 | #103 | 732 | — | |
| 1907 | #100 | 714 | — | |
| 1906 | #103 | 619 | — | |
| 1905 | #100 | 683 | — | |
| 1904 | #103 | 599 | — | |
| 1903 | #101 | 558 | — | |
| 1902 | #97 | 606 | — | |
| 1901 | #99 | 537 | — | |
| 1900 | #105 | 626 | — | |
| 1899 | #96 | 569 | — | |
| 1898 | #94 | 628 | — | |
| 1897 | #88 | 619 | — | |
| 1896 | #96 | 527 | #1,101 | 5 |
| 1895 | #89 | 605 | — | |
| 1894 | #93 | 551 | — | |
| 1893 | #95 | 506 | — | |
| 1892 | #94 | 518 | — | |
| 1891 | #95 | 444 | — | |
| 1890 | #86 | 509 | — | |
| 1889 | #93 | 429 | — | |
| 1888 | #90 | 457 | — | |
| 1887 | #98 | 335 | — | |
| 1886 | #93 | 369 | — | |
| 1885 | #87 | 346 | — | |
| 1884 | #81 | 364 | — | |
| 1883 | #81 | 342 | — | |
| 1882 | #95 | 272 | — | |
| 1881 | #90 | 244 | — | |
| 1880 | #100 | 210 | — | |
In the first year the SSA published name data, Emily was already there! It came in at #100, and was given to 210 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1880–1882, when fewer than 280 girls a year got the name.
Where Emily 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.
- Nebraska#2 · 1 in 38
- Minnesota#2 · 1 in 42
- Vermont#3 · 1 in 35
- Maine#3 · 1 in 39
- Iowa#3 · 1 in 47
Best ever in a state: #1 in Maine, 1993.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minnesota | #2 | 623 | 1 in 42 |
| Nebraska | #2 | 222 | 1 in 38 |
| Iowa | #3 | 322 | 1 in 47 |
| Kansas | #3 | 255 | 1 in 52 |
| Maine | #3 | 147 | 1 in 39 |
| Vermont | #3 | 69 | 1 in 35 |
| Michigan | #4 | 1,040 | 1 in 55 |
| Missouri | #4 | 585 | 1 in 53 |
| New Hampshire | #4 | 148 | 1 in 40 |
| Oregon | #4 | 292 | 1 in 56 |
| Alaska | #5 | 60 | 1 in 54 |
| Arkansas | #5 | 195 | 1 in 61 |
| Connecticut | #5 | 376 | 1 in 47 |
| Indiana | #5 | 587 | 1 in 57 |
| Ohio | #5 | 1,232 | 1 in 55 |
| Pennsylvania | #5 | 1,218 | 1 in 56 |
| South Dakota | #5 | 88 | 1 in 42 |
| Virginia | #5 | 601 | 1 in 61 |
| Wisconsin | #5 | 542 | 1 in 51 |
| Colorado | #6 | 308 | 1 in 69 |
| Delaware | #6 | 77 | 1 in 46 |
| Illinois | #6 | 1,049 | 1 in 72 |
| Kentucky | #6 | 390 | 1 in 54 |
| Utah | #6 | 201 | 1 in 69 |
| Washington | #6 | 471 | 1 in 65 |
| Alabama | #7 | 328 | 1 in 65 |
| Georgia | #7 | 544 | 1 in 76 |
| Maryland | #7 | 479 | 1 in 56 |
| Massachusetts | #7 | 630 | 1 in 57 |
| Rhode Island | #7 | 108 | 1 in 48 |
| Tennessee | #7 | 465 | 1 in 64 |
| Wyoming | #7 | 34 | 1 in 47 |
| District of Columbia | #8 | 63 | 1 in 84 |
| Idaho | #8 | 80 | 1 in 68 |
| North Dakota | #8 | 63 | 1 in 53 |
| West Virginia | #8 | 162 | 1 in 52 |
| New York | #9 | 1,400 | 1 in 83 |
| North Carolina | #9 | 540 | 1 in 74 |
| Montana | #10 | 51 | 1 in 66 |
| Louisiana | #11 | 316 | 1 in 75 |
| New Jersey | #12 | 573 | 1 in 79 |
| Oklahoma | #12 | 210 | 1 in 82 |
| Texas | #12 | 1,249 | 1 in 110 |
| Florida | #13 | 787 | 1 in 95 |
| South Carolina | #13 | 238 | 1 in 79 |
| California | #14 | 1,872 | 1 in 137 |
| Arizona | #15 | 232 | 1 in 113 |
| Mississippi | #15 | 134 | 1 in 96 |
| Hawaii | #17 | 47 | 1 in 102 |
| Nevada | #21 | 69 | 1 in 105 |
| New Mexico | #35 | 63 | 1 in 147 |
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 Emily
- 9 spots since 2024 (#25 → #34)
- 16 spots since 2020 (#18 → #34)
- 26 spots since 2015 (#8 → #34)
- Biggest jump: 35 spots in 1972 (#166 → #131)
- Biggest drop: 16 spots in 1957 (#230 → #246)
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1999 at #1 (26,542 births)
- Births halved by 2013, 14 yrs later
- Top 10: 26 yrs · run 1991–2016
- Top 100: 81 yrs · run 1973–2025
- Top 1,000: 146 yrs · run 1880–2025
- Highest: 1 in 67 girls born in 1999 were named Emily (1.5%)
- Latest: 1 in 295 girls born in 2025 (0.34%)
- 26.5% of all girls named Emily (237,262) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 3,368 | #81 (1884) | #91 |
| 1890s | 5,476 | #86 (1890) | #93 |
| 1900s | 6,423 | #97 (1902) | #101 |
| 1910s | 17,069 | #98 (1914) | #103 |
| 1920s | 18,754 | #119 (1920) | #136 |
| 1930s | 11,916 | #154 (1930) | #166 |
| 1940s | 13,409 | #162 (1941) | #178 |
| 1950s | 12,839 | #203 (1950) | #226 |
| 1960s | 12,332 | #198 (1969) | #246 |
| 1970s | 46,839 | #33 (1978) | #84 |
| 1980s | 131,764 | #13 (1989) | #23 |
| 1990s | 237,262 | #1 (1999) | #4 |
| 2000s | 223,768 | #1 (2000) | #2 |
| 2010s | 117,646 | #6 (2010) | #9 |
| 2020s | 37,622 | #17 (2022) | #22 |
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.
Emily in 1992
Top girls' names in 1992
Top boys' names in 1992
More about 1992
girls
1,843,931 girls got a published name in 1992; 1 in 84 of them was named Emily, which outranked 100.0% 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).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
1,997,409 boys got a published name in 1992; 1 in 64,433 of them was named Emily, which outranked 75.9% of the 9,820 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 17.3% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
- #2,303Whitney32
- #2,303Xaiver32
- #2,303Yuri32
- #2,362Emily31
- #2,362Adil31
- #2,362Alston31
- #2,362Antonia31
- #2,412Aleksandr30
- #2,412Alexandros30
- #2,412Anselmo30
Tied with 49 names at #2,362; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.