Esmeralda
- #373 for girls in 2025, 823 births
- Last seen for boys in 2004 at #11,356
- Given to girls 99.7% of the time
Showing
- Peak · girls
- 1998 · 2,477 births
- Debut · girls
- 5 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 51,571since 1911
Esmeralda over time
girls
Rank among girls' names. Esmeralda has never cracked the top 100 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 | #373 | 823 | — | |
| 2024 | #350 | 894 | — | |
| 2023 | #342 | 907 | — | |
| 2022 | #371 | 854 | — | |
| 2021 | #450 | 696 | — | |
| 2020 | #394 | 790 | — | |
| 2019 | #379 | 825 | — | |
| 2018 | #377 | 832 | — | |
| 2017 | #378 | 821 | — | |
| 2016 | #377 | 869 | — | |
| 2015 | #370 | 883 | — | |
| 2014 | #377 | 867 | — | |
| 2013 | #393 | 786 | — | |
| 2012 | #360 | 882 | — | |
| 2011 | #333 | 946 | — | |
| 2010 | #283 | 1,168 | — | |
| 2009 | #299 | 1,113 | — | |
| 2008 | #256 | 1,340 | — | |
| 2007 | #191 | 1,745 | — | |
| 2006 | #223 | 1,538 | — | |
| 2005 | #214 | 1,618 | — | |
| 2004 | #212 | 1,613 | #11,356 | 5 |
| 2003 | #202 | 1,652 | #7,831 | 8 |
| 2002 | #205 | 1,598 | — | |
| 2001 | #201 | 1,621 | #10,556 | 5 |
| 2000 | #195 | 1,641 | #10,349 | 5 |
| 1999 | #177 | 1,765 | #8,704 | 6 |
| 1998 | #133 | 2,477 | #7,560 | 7 |
| 1997 | #214 | 1,393 | #7,281 | 7 |
| 1996 | #360 | 768 | — | |
| 1995 | #400 | 657 | #7,792 | 6 |
| 1994 | #375 | 688 | #6,968 | 7 |
| 1993 | #365 | 698 | #7,638 | 6 |
| 1992 | #403 | 630 | #4,114 | 14 |
| 1991 | #416 | 611 | #7,271 | 6 |
| 1990 | #422 | 601 | #5,382 | 9 |
| 1989 | #438 | 555 | #6,229 | 7 |
| 1988 | #479 | 475 | #6,426 | 6 |
| 1987 | #456 | 485 | #6,951 | 5 |
| 1986 | #463 | 465 | #6,721 | 5 |
| 1985 | #488 | 418 | #5,785 | 6 |
| 1984 | #503 | 392 | #4,973 | 7 |
| 1983 | #462 | 440 | — | |
| 1982 | #424 | 518 | #3,282 | 13 |
| 1981 | #422 | 515 | #5,468 | 6 |
| 1980 | #420 | 520 | #4,940 | 7 |
| 1979 | #416 | 510 | — | |
| 1978 | #425 | 477 | #4,157 | 8 |
| 1977 | #431 | 471 | #4,582 | 7 |
| 1976 | #419 | 480 | — | |
| 1975 | #448 | 440 | #4,797 | 6 |
| 1974 | #461 | 389 | — | |
| 1973 | #432 | 450 | #4,505 | 6 |
| 1972 | #609 | 261 | — | |
| 1971 | #743 | 199 | — | |
| 1970 | #704 | 221 | — | |
| 1969 | #836 | 153 | — | |
| 1968 | #794 | 159 | — | |
| 1967 | #820 | 148 | — | |
| 1966 | #742 | 176 | — | |
| 1965 | #787 | 157 | — | |
| 1964 | #784 | 174 | — | |
| 1963 | #865 | 146 | — | |
| 1962 | #820 | 163 | — | |
| 1961 | #799 | 171 | — | |
| 1960 | #789 | 168 | — | |
| 1959 | #883 | 138 | — | |
| 1958 | #892 | 131 | — | |
| 1957 | #933 | 122 | — | |
| 1956 | #1,034 | 98 | — | |
| 1955 | #932 | 111 | — | |
| 1954 | #865 | 121 | — | |
| 1953 | #954 | 98 | — | |
| 1952 | #870 | 112 | — | |
| 1951 | #957 | 94 | — | |
| 1950 | #1,123 | 67 | — | |
| 1949 | #1,109 | 66 | — | |
| 1948 | #1,238 | 54 | — | |
| 1947 | #1,576 | 36 | — | |
| 1946 | #1,419 | 38 | — | |
| 1945 | #1,356 | 35 | — | |
| 1944 | #1,578 | 27 | — | |
| 1943 | #1,703 | 25 | — | |
| 1942 | #1,706 | 24 | — | |
| 1941 | #1,750 | 21 | — | |
| 1940 | #2,737 | 10 | — | |
| 1939 | #2,206 | 14 | — | |
| 1938 | #2,340 | 13 | — | |
| 1937 | #1,999 | 16 | — | |
| 1936 | #3,103 | 8 | — | |
| 1935 | #3,156 | 8 | — | |
| 1934 | #2,003 | 16 | — | |
| 1933 | #4,218 | 5 | — | |
| 1932 | #3,274 | 8 | — | |
| 1931 | #3,497 | 7 | — | |
| 1930 | #2,023 | 17 | — | |
| 1929 | #2,098 | 16 | — | |
| 1928 | #2,768 | 11 | — | |
| 1927 | #3,284 | 9 | — | |
| 1926 | #2,474 | 14 | — | |
| 1925 | #1,946 | 20 | — | |
| 1924 | #3,665 | 8 | — | |
| 1923 | #4,376 | 6 | — | |
| 1922 | — | — | ||
| 1921 | #4,464 | 6 | — | |
| 1920 | #3,957 | 7 | — | |
| 1919 | #3,817 | 7 | — | |
| 1918 | #3,244 | 9 | — | |
| 1917 | #3,713 | 7 | — | |
| 1916 | — | — | ||
| 1915 | — | — | ||
| 1914 | — | — | ||
| 1913 | — | — | ||
| 1912 | — | — | ||
| 1911 | #2,463 | 5 | — | |
| 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
1911
The first year at least five girls were named Esmeralda! It came in at #2,463, and was given to 5 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1911–1916, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
Where Esmeralda 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
- Nevada#108 · 1 in 460
- California#155 · 1 in 817
- Arizona#172 · 1 in 763
- Nebraska#244 · 1 in 788
- Illinois#256 · 1 in 1,081
Best ever in a state: #37 in California, 1998.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nevada | #108 | 20 | 1 in 460 |
| California | #155 | 198 | 1 in 817 |
| Arizona | #172 | 37 | 1 in 763 |
| Nebraska | #244 | 9 | 1 in 788 |
| Illinois | #256 | 41 | 1 in 1,081 |
| Texas | #267 | 129 | 1 in 1,245 |
| Colorado | #277 | 22 | 1 in 1,060 |
| New Mexico | #296 | 5 | 1 in 935 |
| Washington | #301 | 24 | 1 in 1,203 |
| Kansas | #324 | 10 | 1 in 1,181 |
| Idaho | #351 | 6 | 1 in 1,194 |
| Wisconsin | #364 | 14 | 1 in 1,447 |
| Utah | #385 | 11 | 1 in 1,552 |
| Connecticut | #393 | 7 | 1 in 1,643 |
| Florida | #404 | 46 | 1 in 1,886 |
| Oregon | #429 | 8 | 1 in 1,632 |
| Georgia | #470 | 24 | 1 in 1,884 |
| New Jersey | #499 | 15 | 1 in 2,367 |
| North Carolina | #534 | 20 | 1 in 2,324 |
| Indiana | #542 | 12 | 1 in 2,326 |
| Iowa | #565 | 5 | 1 in 2,354 |
| Tennessee | #568 | 13 | 1 in 2,467 |
| Virginia | #573 | 13 | 1 in 2,595 |
| Minnesota | #597 | 8 | 1 in 2,685 |
| Oklahoma | #619 | 6 | 1 in 2,463 |
| Massachusetts | #624 | 8 | 1 in 3,004 |
| New York | #628 | 26 | 1 in 3,013 |
| Alabama | #633 | 7 | 1 in 2,617 |
| Maryland | #651 | 7 | 1 in 2,855 |
| South Carolina | #688 | 6 | 1 in 3,048 |
| Ohio | #711 | 13 | 1 in 3,636 |
| Kentucky | #744 | 5 | 1 in 3,450 |
| Michigan | #787 | 9 | 1 in 3,970 |
| Pennsylvania | #813 | 11 | 1 in 4,244 |
| Missouri | #926 | 5 | 1 in 4,860 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arkansas | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Louisiana | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Mississippi | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| West Virginia | — | — | — |
| 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 Esmeralda
Momentum · girls
Holding steady
- 23 spots since 2024 (#350 → #373)
- 21 spots since 2020 (#394 → #373)
- 3 spots since 2015 (#370 → #373)
- Biggest jump: 177 spots in 1973
- Biggest drop: 102 spots in 1956
Rise & fade · girls
87 yrs to peak
- Debuted 1911
- Peaked 1998 at #133 (2,477 births)
- Births halved by 2009, 11 yrs later
Top of the charts · girls
Top 1,000 for 74 yrs
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 74 yrs · run 1957–2025
Share of babies · girls
1 in 713
- Highest: 1 in 713 girls born in 1998 were named Esmeralda (0.14%)
- Latest: 1 in 1,953 girls born in 2025 (0.05%)
Era · girls
The 2000s
- 30.0% of all girls named Esmeralda (15,479) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1910s | 28 | #2,463 (1911) | #3,309 |
| 1920s | 97 | #1,946 (1925) | #3,226 |
| 1930s | 112 | #1,999 (1937) | #2,782 |
| 1940s | 336 | #1,109 (1949) | #1,617 |
| 1950s | 1,092 | #865 (1954) | #944 |
| 1960s | 1,615 | #742 (1966) | #804 |
| 1970s | 3,898 | #416 (1979) | #509 |
| 1980s | 4,783 | #420 (1980) | #456 |
| 1990s | 10,288 | #133 (1998) | #327 |
| 2000s | 15,479 | #191 (2007) | #220 |
| 2010s | 8,879 | #283 (2010) | #363 |
| 2020s | 4,964 | #342 (2023) | #380 |
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 Esmeralda ranked and which names it was up against. Click a point on the chart, or pick a year: