Judith
#788 for girls in 2025, 344 births · Last seen for boys in 1993 at #8,700
Given to girls 99.7% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 1940 · 22,385 births
- Debut · girls
- 5 births
- In top 100 · girls
- 31 yrsof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 454,714since 1880
Judith 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 | #788 | 344 | — | |
| 2024 | #830 | 329 | — | |
| 2023 | #897 | 298 | — | |
| 2022 | #880 | 316 | — | |
| 2021 | #953 | 275 | — | |
| 2020 | #907 | 289 | — | |
| 2019 | #823 | 331 | — | |
| 2018 | #835 | 324 | — | |
| 2017 | #845 | 322 | — | |
| 2016 | #887 | 317 | — | |
| 2015 | #928 | 293 | — | |
| 2014 | #954 | 281 | — | |
| 2013 | #994 | 252 | — | |
| 2012 | #897 | 293 | — | |
| 2011 | #831 | 318 | — | |
| 2010 | #873 | 304 | — | |
| 2009 | #766 | 371 | — | |
| 2008 | #715 | 416 | — | |
| 2007 | #654 | 453 | — | |
| 2006 | #579 | 506 | — | |
| 2005 | #546 | 526 | — | |
| 2004 | #538 | 530 | — | |
| 2003 | #629 | 427 | — | |
| 2002 | #586 | 442 | — | |
| 2001 | #574 | 447 | — | |
| 2000 | #611 | 415 | — | |
| 1999 | #523 | 487 | — | |
| 1998 | #547 | 455 | — | |
| 1997 | #504 | 489 | — | |
| 1996 | #508 | 471 | — | |
| 1995 | #505 | 486 | — | |
| 1994 | #506 | 489 | — | |
| 1993 | #443 | 563 | #8,700 | 5 |
| 1992 | #468 | 528 | #7,422 | 6 |
| 1991 | #452 | 561 | #5,942 | 8 |
| 1990 | #453 | 545 | — | |
| 1989 | #469 | 515 | #4,811 | 10 |
| 1988 | #439 | 518 | #6,426 | 6 |
| 1987 | #425 | 526 | #4,239 | 10 |
| 1986 | #414 | 532 | #4,130 | 10 |
| 1985 | #408 | 551 | — | |
| 1984 | #386 | 568 | #4,552 | 8 |
| 1983 | #367 | 614 | #4,907 | 7 |
| 1982 | #339 | 708 | #4,593 | 8 |
| 1981 | #350 | 668 | #6,262 | 5 |
| 1980 | #386 | 597 | — | |
| 1979 | #370 | 611 | — | |
| 1978 | #345 | 629 | — | |
| 1977 | #333 | 707 | #4,582 | 7 |
| 1976 | #308 | 746 | — | |
| 1975 | #284 | 852 | — | |
| 1974 | #282 | 892 | — | |
| 1973 | #250 | 1,012 | #3,694 | 8 |
| 1972 | #220 | 1,262 | #3,963 | 7 |
| 1971 | #206 | 1,452 | #4,375 | 6 |
| 1970 | #193 | 1,669 | #2,509 | 14 |
| 1969 | #157 | 2,073 | #2,861 | 10 |
| 1968 | #140 | 2,294 | #2,311 | 13 |
| 1967 | #130 | 2,663 | #2,611 | 10 |
| 1966 | #110 | 3,215 | #2,784 | 9 |
| 1965 | #102 | 3,580 | #2,617 | 10 |
| 1964 | #98 | 4,190 | #2,040 | 16 |
| 1963 | #91 | 4,743 | #2,673 | 10 |
| 1962 | #86 | 5,183 | #2,364 | 12 |
| 1961 | #83 | 5,690 | #2,706 | 10 |
| 1960 | #74 | 6,149 | #2,042 | 16 |
| 1959 | #70 | 6,566 | #1,806 | 20 |
| 1958 | #62 | 7,102 | #2,818 | 9 |
| 1957 | #53 | 8,024 | #1,583 | 25 |
| 1956 | #45 | 9,115 | #1,821 | 19 |
| 1955 | #31 | 10,436 | #1,682 | 21 |
| 1954 | #30 | 11,195 | #1,706 | 20 |
| 1953 | #30 | 11,969 | #1,709 | 20 |
| 1952 | #25 | 14,064 | #1,582 | 23 |
| 1951 | #25 | 14,935 | #1,598 | 22 |
| 1950 | #21 | 15,352 | #1,746 | 18 |
| 1949 | #16 | 17,610 | #1,501 | 24 |
| 1948 | #15 | 17,787 | #1,378 | 28 |
| 1947 | #12 | 21,996 | #1,159 | 39 |
| 1946 | #10 | 22,310 | #856 | 59 |
| 1945 | #9 | 20,192 | #817 | 58 |
| 1944 | #9 | 22,431 | #774 | 65 |
| 1943 | #7 | 25,214 | #677 | 89 |
| 1942 | #7 | 24,792 | #740 | 75 |
| 1941 | #6 | 23,320 | #640 | 91 |
| 1940 | #4 | 22,385 | #670 | 82 |
| 1939 | #8 | 16,625 | #685 | 75 |
| 1938 | #12 | 10,878 | #977 | 42 |
| 1937 | #34 | 6,146 | #1,094 | 35 |
| 1936 | #43 | 4,580 | #2,062 | 12 |
| 1935 | #54 | 3,872 | #2,719 | 8 |
| 1934 | #94 | 2,459 | #2,973 | 7 |
| 1933 | #119 | 1,869 | #3,268 | 6 |
| 1932 | #144 | 1,433 | — | |
| 1931 | #167 | 1,098 | — | |
| 1930 | #202 | 944 | #3,022 | 8 |
| 1929 | #242 | 659 | — | |
| 1928 | #251 | 641 | — | |
| 1927 | #265 | 622 | — | |
| 1926 | #260 | 651 | — | |
| 1925 | #285 | 555 | — | |
| 1924 | #315 | 450 | — | |
| 1923 | #299 | 461 | — | |
| 1922 | #321 | 412 | — | |
| 1921 | #351 | 351 | — | |
| 1920 | #341 | 370 | — | |
| 1919 | #372 | 303 | — | |
| 1918 | #356 | 331 | — | |
| 1917 | #381 | 280 | — | |
| 1916 | #359 | 295 | — | |
| 1915 | #380 | 254 | — | |
| 1914 | #414 | 164 | — | |
| 1913 | #423 | 137 | — | |
| 1912 | #431 | 118 | — | |
| 1911 | #414 | 95 | — | |
| 1910 | #495 | 67 | — | |
| 1909 | #488 | 58 | — | |
| 1908 | #511 | 50 | — | |
| 1907 | #489 | 53 | — | |
| 1906 | #549 | 41 | — | |
| 1905 | #564 | 38 | — | |
| 1904 | #537 | 38 | — | |
| 1903 | #565 | 33 | — | |
| 1902 | #490 | 41 | — | |
| 1901 | #645 | 24 | — | |
| 1900 | #449 | 56 | — | |
| 1899 | #498 | 35 | — | |
| 1898 | #465 | 44 | — | |
| 1897 | #470 | 37 | — | |
| 1896 | #467 | 38 | — | |
| 1895 | #520 | 32 | — | |
| 1894 | #475 | 35 | — | |
| 1893 | #535 | 27 | — | |
| 1892 | #554 | 25 | — | |
| 1891 | #483 | 28 | — | |
| 1890 | #558 | 22 | — | |
| 1889 | #543 | 22 | — | |
| 1888 | #636 | 16 | — | |
| 1887 | #512 | 19 | — | |
| 1886 | #606 | 14 | — | |
| 1885 | #576 | 14 | — | |
| 1884 | #463 | 19 | — | |
| 1883 | #499 | 15 | — | |
| 1882 | #678 | 8 | — | |
| 1881 | #539 | 10 | — | |
| 1880 | #836 | 5 | — | |
In the first year the SSA published name data, Judith was already there! It came in at #836, and was given to 5 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1880, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
Where Judith is popular in 1956
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Massachusetts#23 · 1 in 102
- New Hampshire#23 · 1 in 107
- Maine#24 · 1 in 110
- Pennsylvania#24 · 1 in 136
- New Jersey#27 · 1 in 136
Best ever in a state: #1 in Maine, 1941.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts | #23 | 507 | 1 in 102 |
| New Hampshire | #23 | 50 | 1 in 107 |
| Maine | #24 | 88 | 1 in 110 |
| Pennsylvania | #24 | 849 | 1 in 136 |
| New Jersey | #27 | 405 | 1 in 136 |
| Illinois | #29 | 712 | 1 in 147 |
| Wisconsin | #29 | 343 | 1 in 122 |
| Vermont | #30 | 30 | 1 in 116 |
| Connecticut | #31 | 176 | 1 in 134 |
| Rhode Island | #32 | 66 | 1 in 127 |
| Ohio | #34 | 652 | 1 in 165 |
| Delaware | #35 | 31 | 1 in 144 |
| New York | #35 | 979 | 1 in 168 |
| Indiana | #39 | 289 | 1 in 175 |
| District of Columbia | #40 | 87 | 1 in 155 |
| West Virginia | #40 | 111 | 1 in 179 |
| Michigan | #41 | 502 | 1 in 187 |
| Maryland | #42 | 145 | 1 in 203 |
| Alaska | #45 | 16 | 1 in 169 |
| Colorado | #45 | 96 | 1 in 195 |
| Minnesota | #48 | 209 | 1 in 177 |
| Montana | #49 | 36 | 1 in 191 |
| Kentucky | #55 | 144 | 1 in 233 |
| Florida | #57 | 173 | 1 in 249 |
| Missouri | #57 | 192 | 1 in 233 |
| Iowa | #58 | 124 | 1 in 228 |
| Oregon | #58 | 67 | 1 in 241 |
| Wyoming | #60 | 14 | 1 in 209 |
| California | #63 | 573 | 1 in 273 |
| Nebraska | #65 | 54 | 1 in 268 |
| Washington | #65 | 103 | 1 in 278 |
| Virginia | #66 | 154 | 1 in 268 |
| Kansas | #67 | 84 | 1 in 262 |
| Oklahoma | #67 | 73 | 1 in 305 |
| Idaho | #68 | 24 | 1 in 261 |
| North Dakota | #75 | 24 | 1 in 280 |
| Arizona | #76 | 43 | 1 in 300 |
| South Dakota | #80 | 24 | 1 in 311 |
| New Mexico | #92 | 33 | 1 in 333 |
| Nevada | #96 | 7 | 1 in 298 |
| North Carolina | #97 | 108 | 1 in 479 |
| Hawaii | #98 | 19 | 1 in 331 |
| Tennessee | #98 | 79 | 1 in 486 |
| Georgia | #102 | 103 | 1 in 453 |
| Arkansas | #105 | 38 | 1 in 497 |
| Louisiana | #106 | 87 | 1 in 453 |
| Alabama | #111 | 70 | 1 in 524 |
| Texas | #116 | 219 | 1 in 524 |
| South Carolina | #126 | 48 | 1 in 603 |
| Mississippi | #128 | 46 | 1 in 583 |
| Utah | #241 | 9 | 1 in 1,171 |
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 Judith
- 42 spots since 2024 (#830 → #788)
- 119 spots since 2020 (#907 → #788)
- 140 spots since 2015 (#928 → #788)
- Biggest jump: 297 spots in 1881 (#836 → #539)
- Biggest drop: 196 spots in 1901 (#449 → #645)
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1940 at #4 (22,385 births)
- Births halved by 1955, 15 yrs later
- Top 10: 8 yrs · run 1939–1946
- Top 100: 31 yrs · run 1934–1964
- Top 1,000: 146 yrs · run 1880–2025
- Highest: 1 in 51 girls born in 1940 were named Judith (2.0%)
- Latest: 1 in 4,672 girls born in 2025 (0.02%)
- 48.0% of all girls named Judith (218,037) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 142 | #463 (1884) | #589 |
| 1890s | 323 | #465 (1898) | #503 |
| 1900s | 432 | #449 (1900) | #529 |
| 1910s | 2,044 | #356 (1918) | #403 |
| 1920s | 5,172 | #242 (1929) | #293 |
| 1930s | 49,904 | #8 (1939) | #88 |
| 1940s | 218,037 | #4 (1940) | #10 |
| 1950s | 108,758 | #21 (1950) | #39 |
| 1960s | 39,780 | #74 (1960) | #107 |
| 1970s | 9,832 | #193 (1970) | #279 |
| 1980s | 5,797 | #339 (1982) | #398 |
| 1990s | 5,074 | #443 (1993) | #491 |
| 2000s | 4,533 | #538 (2004) | #620 |
| 2010s | 3,035 | #823 (2019) | #887 |
| 2020s | 1,851 | #788 (2025) | #876 |
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.
Judith in 1956
Top girls' names in 1956
Top boys' names in 1956
More about 1956
girls
2,007,703 girls got a published name in 1956; 1 in 220 of them was named Judith, which outranked 99.3% of the 6,891 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 21.4% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
2,115,302 boys got a published name in 1956; 1 in 111,332 of them was named Judith, which outranked 59.1% of the 4,455 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 31.5% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
- #1,765Vidal20
- #1,765Winthrop20
- #1,765Zackery20
- #1,821Judith19
- #1,821Albino19
- #1,821Alonso19
- #1,821Americo19
- #1,886Ace18
- #1,886Algie18
- #1,886Ariel18
Tied with 64 names at #1,821; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.