Leah
- #58 for girls in 2025, 3,880 births
- Last seen for boys in 2022 at #10,863
- Given to girls 99.8% of the time
Showing
- Peak · girls
- 2010 · 6,545 births
- Debut · girls
- 54 births
- In top 100 · girls
- 42 yrsof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 256,488since 1880
Leah over time
girls
Rank among girls' names. Click any year to open it.
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 | #58 | 3,880 | — | |
| 2024 | #53 | 3,988 | — | |
| 2023 | #53 | 3,976 | — | |
| 2022 | #52 | 4,196 | #10,863 | 6 |
| 2021 | #46 | 4,474 | — | |
| 2020 | #45 | 4,530 | #7,502 | 10 |
| 2019 | #43 | 4,780 | #8,215 | 9 |
| 2018 | #41 | 5,038 | #8,154 | 9 |
| 2017 | #40 | 5,202 | #8,140 | 9 |
| 2016 | #37 | 5,434 | #10,744 | 6 |
| 2015 | #36 | 5,636 | — | |
| 2014 | #35 | 5,610 | #8,781 | 8 |
| 2013 | #32 | 5,618 | #12,136 | 5 |
| 2012 | #33 | 5,781 | #12,274 | 5 |
| 2011 | #29 | 6,400 | #7,502 | 10 |
| 2010 | #24 | 6,545 | #8,803 | 8 |
| 2009 | #29 | 6,790 | #8,310 | 9 |
| 2008 | #40 | 5,634 | #7,187 | 11 |
| 2007 | #67 | 4,555 | — | |
| 2006 | #68 | 4,657 | #8,732 | 8 |
| 2005 | #68 | 4,601 | #5,578 | 14 |
| 2004 | #64 | 4,744 | #5,246 | 15 |
| 2003 | #81 | 3,925 | #10,894 | 5 |
| 2002 | #87 | 3,604 | #10,667 | 5 |
| 2001 | #87 | 3,521 | #8,339 | 7 |
| 2000 | #97 | 3,399 | #9,112 | 6 |
| 1999 | #103 | 3,288 | — | |
| 1998 | #106 | 3,218 | #9,631 | 5 |
| 1997 | #104 | 3,203 | — | |
| 1996 | #98 | 3,326 | — | |
| 1995 | #103 | 3,274 | #8,868 | 5 |
| 1994 | #101 | 3,205 | — | |
| 1993 | #92 | 3,414 | #8,700 | 5 |
| 1992 | #96 | 3,431 | #6,670 | 7 |
| 1991 | #91 | 3,816 | #5,942 | 8 |
| 1990 | #82 | 3,924 | #5,382 | 9 |
| 1989 | #83 | 3,784 | #2,690 | 23 |
| 1988 | #82 | 3,558 | #3,705 | 13 |
| 1987 | #82 | 3,454 | #3,731 | 12 |
| 1986 | #78 | 3,457 | #3,268 | 14 |
| 1985 | #78 | 3,572 | #2,710 | 18 |
| 1984 | #83 | 3,535 | #4,215 | 9 |
| 1983 | #82 | 3,484 | #2,577 | 18 |
| 1982 | #79 | 3,762 | #2,426 | 20 |
| 1981 | #81 | 3,808 | #3,601 | 11 |
| 1980 | #84 | 3,642 | #2,831 | 16 |
| 1979 | #98 | 3,075 | #3,810 | 10 |
| 1978 | #108 | 2,710 | #4,157 | 8 |
| 1977 | #112 | 2,586 | #3,606 | 10 |
| 1976 | #119 | 2,270 | #4,012 | 8 |
| 1975 | #132 | 2,117 | #3,659 | 9 |
| 1974 | #149 | 1,844 | #4,634 | 6 |
| 1973 | #175 | 1,587 | — | |
| 1972 | #179 | 1,594 | #3,963 | 7 |
| 1971 | #184 | 1,690 | #3,370 | 9 |
| 1970 | #192 | 1,672 | #3,282 | 9 |
| 1969 | #210 | 1,489 | #3,935 | 6 |
| 1968 | #195 | 1,616 | #4,136 | 5 |
| 1967 | #199 | 1,598 | #2,760 | 9 |
| 1966 | #220 | 1,378 | — | |
| 1965 | #228 | 1,385 | — | |
| 1964 | #230 | 1,422 | — | |
| 1963 | #244 | 1,299 | #4,048 | 5 |
| 1962 | #295 | 977 | #3,305 | 7 |
| 1961 | #332 | 806 | — | |
| 1960 | #342 | 773 | — | |
| 1959 | #352 | 738 | — | |
| 1958 | #357 | 667 | — | |
| 1957 | #335 | 740 | — | |
| 1956 | #339 | 668 | — | |
| 1955 | #356 | 592 | — | |
| 1954 | #368 | 558 | — | |
| 1953 | #347 | 580 | — | |
| 1952 | #374 | 496 | — | |
| 1951 | #370 | 479 | — | |
| 1950 | #385 | 442 | — | |
| 1949 | #369 | 451 | — | |
| 1948 | #403 | 387 | — | |
| 1947 | #410 | 388 | — | |
| 1946 | #431 | 324 | — | |
| 1945 | #421 | 285 | — | |
| 1944 | #414 | 306 | — | |
| 1943 | #418 | 308 | — | |
| 1942 | #393 | 330 | — | |
| 1941 | #352 | 351 | — | |
| 1940 | #334 | 365 | — | |
| 1939 | #322 | 373 | — | |
| 1938 | #324 | 376 | — | |
| 1937 | #307 | 408 | — | |
| 1936 | #335 | 346 | — | |
| 1935 | #334 | 362 | — | |
| 1934 | #315 | 395 | — | |
| 1933 | #336 | 338 | — | |
| 1932 | #376 | 296 | — | |
| 1931 | #360 | 319 | — | |
| 1930 | #376 | 326 | — | |
| 1929 | #381 | 309 | — | |
| 1928 | #332 | 405 | — | |
| 1927 | #370 | 345 | — | |
| 1926 | #319 | 436 | — | |
| 1925 | #316 | 444 | — | |
| 1924 | #296 | 505 | — | |
| 1923 | #294 | 487 | — | |
| 1922 | #293 | 485 | — | |
| 1921 | #292 | 514 | — | |
| 1920 | #286 | 523 | — | |
| 1919 | #277 | 527 | — | |
| 1918 | #259 | 588 | — | |
| 1917 | #269 | 534 | — | |
| 1916 | #266 | 514 | — | |
| 1915 | #252 | 552 | — | |
| 1914 | #246 | 457 | — | |
| 1913 | #248 | 370 | — | |
| 1912 | #257 | 302 | — | |
| 1911 | #270 | 202 | — | |
| 1910 | #268 | 207 | — | |
| 1909 | #271 | 176 | — | |
| 1908 | #249 | 194 | — | |
| 1907 | #234 | 200 | — | |
| 1906 | #255 | 164 | — | |
| 1905 | #247 | 168 | — | |
| 1904 | #259 | 149 | — | |
| 1903 | #226 | 175 | — | |
| 1902 | #231 | 171 | — | |
| 1901 | #210 | 184 | — | |
| 1900 | #252 | 166 | — | |
| 1899 | #223 | 149 | — | |
| 1898 | #211 | 185 | — | |
| 1897 | #226 | 147 | — | |
| 1896 | #211 | 169 | — | |
| 1895 | #191 | 203 | — | |
| 1894 | #194 | 182 | — | |
| 1893 | #198 | 167 | — | |
| 1892 | #196 | 163 | — | |
| 1891 | #190 | 144 | — | |
| 1890 | #184 | 162 | — | |
| 1889 | #197 | 134 | — | |
| 1888 | #207 | 118 | — | |
| 1887 | #228 | 83 | — | |
| 1886 | #219 | 83 | — | |
| 1885 | #212 | 85 | — | |
| 1884 | #212 | 79 | — | |
| 1883 | #223 | 65 | — | |
| 1882 | #230 | 56 | — | |
| 1881 | #208 | 52 | — | |
| 1880 | #208 | 54 | — | |
First appearance
1880
In the first year the SSA published name data, Leah was already there! It came in at #208, and was given to 54 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1880–1883, when fewer than 66 girls a year got the name.
Where Leah 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
- New York#8 · 1 in 142
- New Jersey#13 · 1 in 145
- Delaware#23 · 1 in 125
- Florida#42 · 1 in 288
- Texas#45 · 1 in 345
Best ever in a state: #8 in Delaware, 2010.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York | #8 | 550 | 1 in 142 |
| New Jersey | #13 | 244 | 1 in 145 |
| Delaware | #23 | 18 | 1 in 125 |
| Florida | #42 | 301 | 1 in 288 |
| Texas | #45 | 465 | 1 in 345 |
| Nevada | #51 | 36 | 1 in 256 |
| California | #52 | 464 | 1 in 349 |
| Rhode Island | #56 | 13 | 1 in 189 |
| Maryland | #57 | 61 | 1 in 328 |
| Oregon | #65 | 43 | 1 in 304 |
| Vermont | #65 | 6 | 1 in 162 |
| Virginia | #66 | 91 | 1 in 371 |
| Connecticut | #68 | 36 | 1 in 320 |
| Illinois | #73 | 112 | 1 in 396 |
| Pennsylvania | #78 | 112 | 1 in 417 |
| Kansas | #80 | 35 | 1 in 337 |
| New Mexico | #82 | 15 | 1 in 312 |
| North Carolina | #83 | 113 | 1 in 411 |
| Massachusetts | #84 | 65 | 1 in 370 |
| Arizona | #89 | 64 | 1 in 441 |
| Michigan | #90 | 83 | 1 in 430 |
| Georgia | #91 | 91 | 1 in 497 |
| Louisiana | #91 | 40 | 1 in 409 |
| Ohio | #91 | 106 | 1 in 446 |
| Hawaii | #92 | 8 | 1 in 268 |
| Washington | #99 | 62 | 1 in 465 |
| Wisconsin | #100 | 48 | 1 in 422 |
| Arkansas | #101 | 27 | 1 in 392 |
| Missouri | #104 | 56 | 1 in 434 |
| Tennessee | #104 | 69 | 1 in 465 |
| Montana | #105 | 9 | 1 in 314 |
| Colorado | #107 | 49 | 1 in 476 |
| Utah | #107 | 39 | 1 in 438 |
| District of Columbia | #109 | 7 | 1 in 288 |
| Iowa | #111 | 28 | 1 in 420 |
| Indiana | #117 | 55 | 1 in 507 |
| South Dakota | #117 | 9 | 1 in 339 |
| Minnesota | #119 | 44 | 1 in 488 |
| South Carolina | #120 | 36 | 1 in 508 |
| Alabama | #125 | 35 | 1 in 523 |
| Kentucky | #129 | 34 | 1 in 507 |
| Nebraska | #138 | 16 | 1 in 444 |
| New Hampshire | #139 | 9 | 1 in 422 |
| North Dakota | #141 | 7 | 1 in 386 |
| West Virginia | #154 | 10 | 1 in 507 |
| Idaho | #160 | 13 | 1 in 551 |
| Mississippi | #163 | 15 | 1 in 593 |
| Maine | #176 | 6 | 1 in 519 |
| Oklahoma | #206 | 19 | 1 in 778 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| 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 Leah
Momentum · girls
Falling
- 13 spots since 2020 (#45 → #58)
- Biggest jump: 51 spots in 1963
- Biggest drop: 51 spots in 1927
Rise & fade · girls
130 yrs to peak
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 2010 at #24 (6,545 births)
- Not yet halved from its peak
Top of the charts · girls
Top 100 for 42 yrs
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: 42 yrs · run 2000–2025
- Top 1,000: 146 yrs · run 1880–2025
Share of babies · girls
1 in 271
- Highest: 1 in 271 girls born in 2009 were named Leah (0.37%)
- Latest: 1 in 414 girls born in 2025 (0.24%)
- Its best rank, #24 in 2010, was only 1 in 272 (0.37%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
Era · girls
The 2010s
- 21.9% of all girls named Leah (56,044) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 809 | #197 (1889) | #214 |
| 1890s | 1,671 | #184 (1890) | #202 |
| 1900s | 1,747 | #210 (1901) | #243 |
| 1910s | 4,253 | #246 (1914) | #261 |
| 1920s | 4,453 | #286 (1920) | #318 |
| 1930s | 3,539 | #307 (1937) | #339 |
| 1940s | 3,495 | #334 (1940) | #395 |
| 1950s | 5,960 | #335 (1957) | #358 |
| 1960s | 12,743 | #195 (1968) | #250 |
| 1970s | 21,145 | #98 (1979) | #145 |
| 1980s | 36,056 | #78 (1985) | #81 |
| 1990s | 34,099 | #82 (1990) | #98 |
| 2000s | 45,430 | #29 (2009) | #69 |
| 2010s | 56,044 | #24 (2010) | #35 |
| 2020s | 25,044 | #45 (2020) | #51 |
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 Leah ranked and which names it was up against. Click a point on the chart, or pick a year: