Kiley
#2,778 for girls in 2025, 61 births · Last seen for boys in 2016 at #12,185
Given to girls 94.6% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 2008 · 1,090 births
- Debut · girls
- 5 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 19,175since 1958
Kiley over time
Rank within each sex, plotted together. 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 | #2,778 | 61 | — | |
| 2024 | #2,889 | 57 | — | |
| 2023 | #2,789 | 61 | — | |
| 2022 | #2,579 | 68 | — | |
| 2021 | #2,309 | 79 | — | |
| 2020 | #1,818 | 108 | — | |
| 2019 | #1,789 | 114 | — | |
| 2018 | #1,506 | 145 | — | |
| 2017 | #1,268 | 186 | — | |
| 2016 | #1,164 | 216 | #12,185 | 5 |
| 2015 | #897 | 307 | — | |
| 2014 | #660 | 433 | — | |
| 2013 | #533 | 560 | — | |
| 2012 | #512 | 595 | — | |
| 2011 | #422 | 737 | #10,808 | 6 |
| 2010 | #378 | 840 | — | |
| 2009 | #359 | 895 | #8,985 | 8 |
| 2008 | #307 | 1,090 | #9,019 | 8 |
| 2007 | #367 | 887 | — | |
| 2006 | #428 | 742 | — | |
| 2005 | #384 | 815 | #11,472 | 5 |
| 2004 | #373 | 840 | #6,976 | 10 |
| 2003 | #360 | 850 | #5,558 | 13 |
| 2002 | #399 | 731 | #8,456 | 7 |
| 2001 | #429 | 643 | #4,890 | 15 |
| 2000 | #451 | 628 | #9,112 | 6 |
| 1999 | #452 | 590 | #3,834 | 19 |
| 1998 | #537 | 466 | #3,849 | 18 |
| 1997 | #561 | 417 | #4,451 | 14 |
| 1996 | #575 | 401 | #3,678 | 18 |
| 1995 | #615 | 360 | #3,191 | 21 |
| 1994 | #685 | 307 | #4,094 | 15 |
| 1993 | #686 | 318 | #3,141 | 21 |
| 1992 | #700 | 308 | #2,834 | 24 |
| 1991 | #709 | 298 | #3,325 | 18 |
| 1990 | #752 | 276 | #2,308 | 30 |
| 1989 | #688 | 294 | #2,206 | 31 |
| 1988 | #762 | 245 | #2,765 | 20 |
| 1987 | #822 | 212 | #2,942 | 17 |
| 1986 | #967 | 163 | #2,096 | 27 |
| 1985 | #931 | 169 | #1,916 | 30 |
| 1984 | #867 | 175 | #2,437 | 20 |
| 1983 | #902 | 167 | #1,711 | 33 |
| 1982 | #942 | 158 | #2,426 | 20 |
| 1981 | #1,093 | 127 | #2,138 | 24 |
| 1980 | #750 | 221 | #1,619 | 36 |
| 1979 | #632 | 275 | #1,532 | 38 |
| 1978 | #619 | 273 | #1,299 | 48 |
| 1977 | #2,606 | 32 | #1,707 | 31 |
| 1976 | #2,027 | 43 | #1,373 | 42 |
| 1975 | #2,516 | 31 | #1,084 | 60 |
| 1974 | #2,172 | 37 | #1,099 | 56 |
| 1973 | #2,753 | 25 | #1,108 | 54 |
| 1972 | #2,523 | 28 | #960 | 71 |
| 1971 | #2,955 | 23 | #910 | 80 |
| 1970 | #3,712 | 16 | #1,103 | 55 |
| 1969 | #5,456 | 8 | #2,861 | 10 |
| 1968 | #6,246 | 6 | #2,311 | 13 |
| 1967 | — | — | ||
| 1966 | — | — | ||
| 1965 | — | — | ||
| 1964 | #5,008 | 8 | — | |
| 1963 | #6,592 | 5 | — | |
| 1962 | — | — | ||
| 1961 | — | — | ||
| 1960 | — | — | ||
| 1959 | — | — | ||
| 1958 | #6,103 | 5 | — | |
| 1957 | — | — | ||
| 1956 | — | — | ||
| 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 Kiley! It came in at #6,103, and was given to 5 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1958–1963, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
Where Kiley is popular in 2005
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- New Hampshire#129 · 1 in 492
- Maine#149 · 1 in 549
- Hawaii#160 · 1 in 473
- Alaska#170 · 1 in 460
- Nebraska#219 · 1 in 829
Best ever in a state: #113 in Maine, 2007.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| New Hampshire | #129 | 9 | 1 in 492 |
| Maine | #149 | 8 | 1 in 549 |
| Hawaii | #160 | 7 | 1 in 473 |
| Alaska | #170 | 5 | 1 in 460 |
| Nebraska | #219 | 10 | 1 in 829 |
| Massachusetts | #224 | 26 | 1 in 1,096 |
| Kentucky | #226 | 19 | 1 in 1,036 |
| Indiana | #233 | 30 | 1 in 1,084 |
| Kansas | #233 | 15 | 1 in 918 |
| Oklahoma | #238 | 17 | 1 in 981 |
| Missouri | #253 | 25 | 1 in 1,160 |
| Arkansas | #257 | 12 | 1 in 1,025 |
| Iowa | #269 | 12 | 1 in 1,140 |
| Florida | #270 | 62 | 1 in 1,382 |
| Idaho | #271 | 7 | 1 in 979 |
| Ohio | #272 | 40 | 1 in 1,432 |
| Louisiana | #287 | 15 | 1 in 1,312 |
| Alabama | #292 | 15 | 1 in 1,316 |
| Pennsylvania | #295 | 36 | 1 in 1,524 |
| West Virginia | #318 | 5 | 1 in 1,373 |
| Minnesota | #324 | 17 | 1 in 1,530 |
| Connecticut | #335 | 9 | 1 in 1,582 |
| Virginia | #335 | 24 | 1 in 1,546 |
| Illinois | #373 | 36 | 1 in 1,866 |
| Utah | #376 | 11 | 1 in 1,673 |
| Washington | #390 | 16 | 1 in 1,835 |
| Tennessee | #400 | 16 | 1 in 1,942 |
| Michigan | #412 | 21 | 1 in 2,255 |
| Nevada | #413 | 7 | 1 in 1,656 |
| Wisconsin | #420 | 12 | 1 in 2,087 |
| New Mexico | #424 | 5 | 1 in 1,666 |
| Colorado | #436 | 12 | 1 in 2,060 |
| Oregon | #436 | 8 | 1 in 1,987 |
| Mississippi | #442 | 6 | 1 in 1,929 |
| Maryland | #469 | 11 | 1 in 2,252 |
| New Jersey | #469 | 16 | 1 in 2,537 |
| South Carolina | #474 | 8 | 1 in 2,181 |
| Georgia | #521 | 19 | 1 in 2,705 |
| Arizona | #534 | 14 | 1 in 2,538 |
| North Carolina | #535 | 16 | 1 in 2,837 |
| Texas | #568 | 51 | 1 in 3,149 |
| New York | #575 | 30 | 1 in 3,169 |
| California | #632 | 62 | 1 in 3,716 |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| 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 Kiley
- 111 spots since 2024 (#2,889 → #2,778)
- 960 spots since 2020 (#1,818 → #2,778)
- 1,881 spots since 2015 (#897 → #2,778)
- Biggest jump: 1,987 spots in 1978 (#2,606 → #619)
- Biggest drop: 343 spots in 1981 (#750 → #1,093)
- Debuted 1958
- Peaked 2008 at #307 (1,090 births)
- Births halved by 2014, 6 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 37 yrs · run 1982–2015
- Highest: 1 in 1,735 girls born in 2008 were named Kiley (0.06%)
- Latest: 1 in 26,349 girls born in 2025 (0.00%)
- 42.4% of all girls named Kiley (8,121) were born in this decade
- Mostly boys until 1975, mostly girls since
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1950s | 5 | #6,103 (1958) | #6,103 |
| 1960s | 27 | #5,008 (1964) | #5,826 |
| 1970s | 783 | #619 (1978) | #2,252 |
| 1980s | 1,931 | #688 (1989) | #872 |
| 1990s | 3,741 | #452 (1999) | #627 |
| 2000s | 8,121 | #307 (2008) | #386 |
| 2010s | 4,133 | #378 (2010) | #913 |
| 2020s | 434 | #1,818 (2020) | #2,527 |
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.
Kiley in 2005
Top girls' names in 2005
Top boys' names in 2005
More about 2005
girls
1,847,842 girls got a published name in 2005; 1 in 2,267 of them was named Kiley, which outranked 98.0% of the 19,199 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 9.0% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
boys
1,997,305 boys got a published name in 2005; 1 in 399,461 of them was named Kiley, which outranked 14.2% of the 13,370 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 10.7% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
Tied with 1,898 names at #11,472; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.