Nova
- #46 for girls in 2025, 4,657 births
- #1,305 for boys in 2025, 149 births
- Given to girls 94.5% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 2022 · 5,927 births
- Debut · girls
- 12 births
- In top 100 · girls
- 9 yrsof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 55,783since 1885
Nova 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 | #46 | 4,657 | #1,305 | 149 |
| 2024 | #39 | 5,072 | #1,176 | 176 |
| 2023 | #35 | 5,282 | #952 | 237 |
| 2022 | #32 | 5,927 | #878 | 271 |
| 2021 | #32 | 5,574 | #851 | 277 |
| 2020 | #38 | 5,006 | #758 | 317 |
| 2019 | #51 | 4,332 | #857 | 259 |
| 2018 | #55 | 4,174 | #862 | 254 |
| 2017 | #94 | 3,057 | #920 | 230 |
| 2016 | #136 | 2,286 | #1,229 | 152 |
| 2015 | #213 | 1,529 | #1,353 | 129 |
| 2014 | #287 | 1,136 | #1,536 | 104 |
| 2013 | #527 | 567 | #1,811 | 79 |
| 2012 | #618 | 463 | #2,132 | 63 |
| 2011 | #885 | 295 | #2,852 | 41 |
| 2010 | #1,127 | 218 | #3,072 | 37 |
| 2009 | #1,105 | 231 | #2,847 | 42 |
| 2008 | #1,359 | 178 | #3,744 | 28 |
| 2007 | #1,551 | 147 | #4,243 | 23 |
| 2006 | #1,905 | 106 | #4,105 | 23 |
| 2005 | #1,878 | 103 | #4,198 | 21 |
| 2004 | #1,698 | 114 | #4,005 | 22 |
| 2003 | #1,858 | 99 | #5,558 | 13 |
| 2002 | #1,934 | 91 | #5,395 | 13 |
| 2001 | #1,978 | 86 | #4,121 | 19 |
| 2000 | #2,332 | 66 | #7,416 | 8 |
| 1999 | #2,567 | 55 | #6,042 | 10 |
| 1998 | #2,530 | 54 | #6,314 | 9 |
| 1997 | #3,105 | 38 | #5,642 | 10 |
| 1996 | #4,306 | 24 | #9,015 | 5 |
| 1995 | #4,518 | 22 | — | |
| 1994 | #5,016 | 19 | — | |
| 1993 | #4,671 | 21 | — | |
| 1992 | #7,512 | 11 | — | |
| 1991 | #4,808 | 20 | — | |
| 1990 | #4,003 | 25 | #8,117 | 5 |
| 1989 | #5,286 | 16 | #6,941 | 6 |
| 1988 | #4,496 | 19 | — | |
| 1987 | #4,122 | 20 | — | |
| 1986 | #3,360 | 26 | — | |
| 1985 | #2,545 | 38 | — | |
| 1984 | #2,574 | 36 | — | |
| 1983 | #2,516 | 36 | — | |
| 1982 | #2,050 | 50 | #5,003 | 7 |
| 1981 | #1,985 | 53 | — | |
| 1980 | #1,704 | 66 | #6,250 | 5 |
| 1979 | #1,605 | 70 | #5,355 | 6 |
| 1978 | #1,804 | 56 | — | |
| 1977 | #1,341 | 85 | — | |
| 1976 | #1,551 | 65 | #5,587 | 5 |
| 1975 | #1,672 | 57 | — | |
| 1974 | #1,709 | 53 | #4,634 | 6 |
| 1973 | #1,788 | 48 | — | |
| 1972 | #1,578 | 58 | — | |
| 1971 | #1,877 | 46 | #4,375 | 6 |
| 1970 | #1,755 | 51 | — | |
| 1969 | #2,102 | 36 | — | |
| 1968 | #2,246 | 29 | — | |
| 1967 | #1,980 | 35 | — | |
| 1966 | #1,859 | 38 | — | |
| 1965 | #1,950 | 35 | — | |
| 1964 | #1,610 | 50 | — | |
| 1963 | #1,298 | 72 | — | |
| 1962 | #1,598 | 50 | — | |
| 1961 | #2,543 | 23 | — | |
| 1960 | #1,953 | 34 | — | |
| 1959 | #2,517 | 21 | — | |
| 1958 | #2,663 | 19 | — | |
| 1957 | #2,168 | 26 | #3,552 | 6 |
| 1956 | #1,931 | 31 | — | |
| 1955 | #1,641 | 39 | — | |
| 1954 | #2,027 | 27 | — | |
| 1953 | #2,071 | 25 | — | |
| 1952 | #1,713 | 33 | — | |
| 1951 | #1,665 | 33 | — | |
| 1950 | #1,764 | 29 | — | |
| 1949 | #1,423 | 42 | — | |
| 1948 | #1,386 | 44 | #3,668 | 5 |
| 1947 | #1,633 | 34 | — | |
| 1946 | #1,532 | 33 | #3,525 | 5 |
| 1945 | #1,588 | 27 | — | |
| 1944 | #1,519 | 29 | — | |
| 1943 | #1,305 | 39 | #2,732 | 8 |
| 1942 | #1,229 | 42 | #3,212 | 6 |
| 1941 | #1,294 | 35 | — | |
| 1940 | #1,088 | 44 | — | |
| 1939 | #1,009 | 49 | — | |
| 1938 | #857 | 68 | #3,175 | 6 |
| 1937 | #950 | 53 | #2,905 | 7 |
| 1936 | #909 | 56 | — | |
| 1935 | #798 | 72 | — | |
| 1934 | #756 | 78 | — | |
| 1933 | #887 | 58 | — | |
| 1932 | #795 | 73 | — | |
| 1931 | #777 | 75 | #3,095 | 7 |
| 1930 | #818 | 75 | #4,001 | 5 |
| 1929 | #690 | 104 | #3,959 | 5 |
| 1928 | #781 | 84 | — | |
| 1927 | #839 | 77 | — | |
| 1926 | #854 | 75 | #4,201 | 5 |
| 1925 | #764 | 94 | #3,741 | 6 |
| 1924 | #788 | 89 | #2,473 | 12 |
| 1923 | #819 | 80 | #4,239 | 5 |
| 1922 | #784 | 86 | #2,630 | 11 |
| 1921 | #766 | 91 | #4,322 | 5 |
| 1920 | #690 | 111 | #2,459 | 12 |
| 1919 | #752 | 87 | #2,877 | 9 |
| 1918 | #802 | 79 | — | |
| 1917 | #753 | 85 | #3,981 | 5 |
| 1916 | #761 | 81 | #3,177 | 7 |
| 1915 | #791 | 69 | #2,829 | 8 |
| 1914 | #855 | 47 | — | |
| 1913 | #674 | 59 | #2,821 | 5 |
| 1912 | #678 | 54 | — | |
| 1911 | #722 | 36 | #1,740 | 5 |
| 1910 | #753 | 32 | — | |
| 1909 | #624 | 39 | — | |
| 1908 | #639 | 36 | — | |
| 1907 | #666 | 32 | — | |
| 1906 | #707 | 27 | — | |
| 1905 | #642 | 30 | — | |
| 1904 | #710 | 24 | — | |
| 1903 | #734 | 21 | — | |
| 1902 | #818 | 18 | — | |
| 1901 | #659 | 23 | — | |
| 1900 | #656 | 29 | — | |
| 1899 | #704 | 20 | — | |
| 1898 | #586 | 30 | — | |
| 1897 | #735 | 18 | — | |
| 1896 | #635 | 24 | — | |
| 1895 | #703 | 20 | — | |
| 1894 | #697 | 18 | — | |
| 1893 | #1,023 | 9 | — | |
| 1892 | #638 | 20 | — | |
| 1891 | #750 | 13 | — | |
| 1890 | #693 | 15 | — | |
| 1889 | #757 | 12 | — | |
| 1888 | #663 | 15 | — | |
| 1887 | #1,036 | 6 | — | |
| 1886 | #897 | 7 | — | |
| 1885 | #629 | 12 | — | |
| 1884 | — | — | ||
| 1883 | — | — | ||
| 1882 | — | — | ||
| 1881 | — | — | ||
| 1880 | — | #909 | 5 | |
The first year at least five girls were named Nova! It came in at #629, and was given to 12 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1886–1887, when fewer than 8 girls a year got the name.
Where Nova 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.
- Mississippi#9 · 1 in 137
- Louisiana#12 · 1 in 157
- Delaware#14 · 1 in 107
- Arkansas#17 · 1 in 171
- Georgia#17 · 1 in 213
Best ever in a state: #3 in Mississippi, 2022.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mississippi | #9 | 65 | 1 in 137 |
| Louisiana | #12 | 104 | 1 in 157 |
| Delaware | #14 | 21 | 1 in 107 |
| Arkansas | #17 | 62 | 1 in 171 |
| Georgia | #17 | 212 | 1 in 213 |
| Alabama | #19 | 107 | 1 in 171 |
| Hawaii | #19 | 18 | 1 in 119 |
| Oklahoma | #19 | 86 | 1 in 172 |
| Missouri | #22 | 123 | 1 in 198 |
| South Carolina | #22 | 91 | 1 in 201 |
| South Dakota | #23 | 22 | 1 in 139 |
| West Virginia | #24 | 35 | 1 in 145 |
| Montana | #27 | 19 | 1 in 149 |
| Ohio | #27 | 217 | 1 in 218 |
| Nevada | #28 | 48 | 1 in 192 |
| North Carolina | #28 | 203 | 1 in 229 |
| Alaska | #29 | 13 | 1 in 127 |
| Indiana | #29 | 121 | 1 in 231 |
| Kentucky | #29 | 86 | 1 in 201 |
| Tennessee | #29 | 149 | 1 in 215 |
| Iowa | #30 | 58 | 1 in 203 |
| Michigan | #31 | 156 | 1 in 229 |
| New Mexico | #31 | 26 | 1 in 180 |
| Wisconsin | #34 | 89 | 1 in 228 |
| Florida | #39 | 319 | 1 in 272 |
| Pennsylvania | #39 | 179 | 1 in 261 |
| District of Columbia | #40 | 14 | 1 in 144 |
| Maryland | #40 | 80 | 1 in 250 |
| Idaho | #41 | 35 | 1 in 205 |
| Oregon | #43 | 53 | 1 in 246 |
| Arizona | #49 | 99 | 1 in 285 |
| Utah | #52 | 67 | 1 in 255 |
| Nebraska | #53 | 29 | 1 in 245 |
| Virginia | #54 | 105 | 1 in 321 |
| Illinois | #56 | 135 | 1 in 328 |
| Connecticut | #59 | 42 | 1 in 274 |
| Kansas | #61 | 42 | 1 in 281 |
| Texas | #61 | 416 | 1 in 386 |
| Washington | #64 | 87 | 1 in 332 |
| Colorado | #65 | 70 | 1 in 333 |
| Maine | #68 | 14 | 1 in 222 |
| New Jersey | #69 | 101 | 1 in 351 |
| New Hampshire | #76 | 15 | 1 in 253 |
| New York | #80 | 170 | 1 in 461 |
| North Dakota | #80 | 11 | 1 in 245 |
| Minnesota | #82 | 60 | 1 in 358 |
| California | #93 | 326 | 1 in 496 |
| Rhode Island | #120 | 7 | 1 in 350 |
| Massachusetts | #138 | 40 | 1 in 601 |
| 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 Nova
- 8 spots since 2020 (#38 → #46)
- 167 spots since 2015 (#213 → #46)
- Biggest jump: 373 spots in 1888
- Biggest drop: 385 spots in 1893
- Debuted 1885
- Peaked 2022 at #32 (5,927 births)
- Not yet halved from its peak
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: 9 yrs · run 2017–2025
- Top 1,000: 67 yrs · run 1894–1938
- Highest: 1 in 277 girls born in 2022 were named Nova (0.36%)
- Latest: 1 in 345 girls born in 2025 (0.29%)
- 56.5% of all girls named Nova (31,518) were born in this decade
- Mostly boys until 1884, mostly girls since
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 52 | #629 (1885) | #796 |
| 1890s | 187 | #586 (1898) | #716 |
| 1900s | 279 | #624 (1909) | #686 |
| 1910s | 629 | #674 (1913) | #754 |
| 1920s | 891 | #690 (1920) | #778 |
| 1930s | 657 | #756 (1934) | #856 |
| 1940s | 369 | #1,088 (1940) | #1,400 |
| 1950s | 283 | #1,641 (1955) | #2,016 |
| 1960s | 402 | #1,298 (1963) | #1,914 |
| 1970s | 589 | #1,341 (1977) | #1,668 |
| 1980s | 360 | #1,704 (1980) | #3,064 |
| 1990s | 289 | #2,530 (1998) | #4,304 |
| 2000s | 1,221 | #1,105 (2009) | #1,760 |
| 2010s | 18,057 | #51 (2019) | #399 |
| 2020s | 31,518 | #32 (2022) | #37 |
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 Nova ranked and which names it was up against. Click a point on the chart, or pick a year: