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 2018
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Oklahoma#21 · 1 in 196
- South Carolina#25 · 1 in 179
- Georgia#25 · 1 in 225
- Delaware#29 · 1 in 138
- Ohio#31 · 1 in 236
Best ever in a state: #3 in Mississippi, 2022.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oklahoma | #21 | 80 | 1 in 196 |
| Georgia | #25 | 206 | 1 in 225 |
| South Carolina | #25 | 99 | 1 in 179 |
| Delaware | #29 | 18 | 1 in 138 |
| Ohio | #31 | 216 | 1 in 236 |
| Arkansas | #34 | 50 | 1 in 220 |
| Michigan | #34 | 172 | 1 in 234 |
| North Carolina | #34 | 191 | 1 in 236 |
| Indiana | #37 | 123 | 1 in 242 |
| Kentucky | #37 | 77 | 1 in 230 |
| Nevada | #38 | 44 | 1 in 241 |
| Alaska | #39 | 13 | 1 in 158 |
| Mississippi | #40 | 52 | 1 in 207 |
| West Virginia | #40 | 31 | 1 in 181 |
| Alabama | #41 | 75 | 1 in 249 |
| Maine | #41 | 21 | 1 in 162 |
| Pennsylvania | #45 | 183 | 1 in 275 |
| Tennessee | #46 | 114 | 1 in 273 |
| Louisiana | #47 | 70 | 1 in 280 |
| Maryland | #47 | 88 | 1 in 265 |
| Nebraska | #47 | 31 | 1 in 242 |
| Hawaii | #48 | 14 | 1 in 206 |
| Missouri | #49 | 101 | 1 in 262 |
| Iowa | #55 | 47 | 1 in 261 |
| Wyoming | #56 | 7 | 1 in 138 |
| Florida | #57 | 232 | 1 in 367 |
| Illinois | #57 | 156 | 1 in 343 |
| Wisconsin | #57 | 83 | 1 in 268 |
| Colorado | #58 | 70 | 1 in 318 |
| Kansas | #60 | 42 | 1 in 287 |
| Connecticut | #61 | 42 | 1 in 275 |
| North Dakota | #65 | 13 | 1 in 229 |
| Oregon | #66 | 45 | 1 in 311 |
| Rhode Island | #66 | 12 | 1 in 232 |
| Washington | #68 | 83 | 1 in 366 |
| New Mexico | #75 | 19 | 1 in 306 |
| South Dakota | #77 | 12 | 1 in 255 |
| Vermont | #78 | 6 | 1 in 183 |
| Idaho | #82 | 19 | 1 in 315 |
| Texas | #83 | 340 | 1 in 467 |
| Utah | #83 | 47 | 1 in 355 |
| Arizona | #85 | 71 | 1 in 414 |
| Montana | #86 | 10 | 1 in 273 |
| Virginia | #91 | 84 | 1 in 428 |
| Minnesota | #93 | 53 | 1 in 443 |
| New York | #93 | 170 | 1 in 510 |
| New Jersey | #98 | 74 | 1 in 485 |
| District of Columbia | #111 | 9 | 1 in 338 |
| Massachusetts | #116 | 49 | 1 in 502 |
| California | #120 | 301 | 1 in 629 |
| New Hampshire | #120 | 9 | 1 in 396 |
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
- 7 spots since 2024 (#39 → #46)
- 8 spots since 2020 (#38 → #46)
- 167 spots since 2015 (#213 → #46)
- Biggest jump: 373 spots in 1888 (#1,036 → #663)
- Biggest drop: 385 spots in 1893 (#638 → #1,023)
- 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.
Nova in 2018
Top girls' names in 2018
Top boys' names in 2018
More about 2018
girls
1,701,074 girls got a published name in 2018; 1 in 408 of them was named Nova, which outranked 99.7% of the 18,152 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 8.2% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
1,816,158 boys got a published name in 2018; 1 in 7,150 of them was named Nova, which outranked 93.9% of the 14,118 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 7.9% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).