Oakley
- #156 for girls in 2025, 1,933 births
- #454 for boys in 2025, 688 births
- Given to girls 57.4% of the time
Showing
- Peak · girls
- 2023 · 1,884 births
- Debut · girls
- 7 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 15,360since 1913
Oakley over time
girlsboys
Rank within each sex, plotted together. 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 | #156 | 1,933 | #454 | 688 |
| 2024 | #157 | 1,900 | #408 | 792 |
| 2023 | #153 | 1,884 | #396 | 804 |
| 2022 | #157 | 1,844 | #393 | 810 |
| 2021 | #193 | 1,538 | #403 | 773 |
| 2020 | #284 | 1,128 | #420 | 712 |
| 2019 | #349 | 908 | #441 | 690 |
| 2018 | #389 | 796 | #459 | 639 |
| 2017 | #475 | 658 | #479 | 615 |
| 2016 | #579 | 535 | #578 | 479 |
| 2015 | #613 | 471 | #567 | 496 |
| 2014 | #765 | 365 | #656 | 397 |
| 2013 | #926 | 274 | #770 | 291 |
| 2012 | #1,264 | 190 | #877 | 240 |
| 2011 | #1,440 | 157 | #991 | 196 |
| 2010 | #1,751 | 118 | #1,267 | 137 |
| 2009 | #2,165 | 92 | #1,266 | 139 |
| 2008 | #2,511 | 75 | #1,679 | 91 |
| 2007 | #2,930 | 61 | #1,951 | 72 |
| 2006 | #3,316 | 49 | #2,037 | 65 |
| 2005 | #3,587 | 41 | #1,943 | 65 |
| 2004 | #3,566 | 41 | #2,102 | 56 |
| 2003 | #4,307 | 30 | #1,962 | 59 |
| 2002 | #4,071 | 31 | #2,504 | 39 |
| 2001 | #6,067 | 18 | #2,086 | 50 |
| 2000 | #4,527 | 26 | #2,087 | 48 |
| 1999 | #5,039 | 21 | #2,398 | 37 |
| 1998 | #6,360 | 15 | #2,274 | 39 |
| 1997 | #5,868 | 16 | #2,449 | 33 |
| 1996 | #5,065 | 19 | #2,590 | 29 |
| 1995 | #7,041 | 12 | #2,626 | 28 |
| 1994 | #8,122 | 10 | #3,326 | 20 |
| 1993 | #8,052 | 10 | #2,697 | 26 |
| 1992 | #8,734 | 9 | #3,105 | 21 |
| 1991 | #6,976 | 12 | #4,231 | 13 |
| 1990 | — | #3,309 | 18 | |
| 1989 | — | #5,165 | 9 | |
| 1988 | — | #4,786 | 9 | |
| 1987 | — | #4,573 | 9 | |
| 1986 | — | — | ||
| 1985 | #10,677 | 5 | #5,785 | 6 |
| 1984 | — | #5,561 | 6 | |
| 1983 | #9,015 | 6 | #5,484 | 6 |
| 1982 | — | #3,966 | 10 | |
| 1981 | — | #3,858 | 10 | |
| 1980 | — | #2,965 | 15 | |
| 1979 | — | #3,810 | 10 | |
| 1978 | — | — | ||
| 1977 | — | #5,845 | 5 | |
| 1976 | — | #5,587 | 5 | |
| 1975 | — | #3,659 | 9 | |
| 1974 | — | #4,190 | 7 | |
| 1973 | — | #4,054 | 7 | |
| 1972 | — | #2,991 | 11 | |
| 1971 | — | — | ||
| 1970 | — | #3,071 | 10 | |
| 1969 | — | #3,314 | 8 | |
| 1968 | — | #2,907 | 9 | |
| 1967 | — | #3,231 | 7 | |
| 1966 | — | #3,948 | 5 | |
| 1965 | — | #2,476 | 11 | |
| 1964 | — | #2,854 | 9 | |
| 1963 | — | — | ||
| 1962 | — | #2,117 | 15 | |
| 1961 | — | #2,706 | 10 | |
| 1960 | — | #2,871 | 9 | |
| 1959 | — | #2,530 | 11 | |
| 1958 | — | #2,642 | 10 | |
| 1957 | — | #2,093 | 15 | |
| 1956 | — | #2,497 | 11 | |
| 1955 | — | #2,764 | 9 | |
| 1954 | — | #2,316 | 12 | |
| 1953 | — | #2,391 | 11 | |
| 1952 | — | #2,073 | 14 | |
| 1951 | — | #2,055 | 14 | |
| 1950 | — | #1,395 | 27 | |
| 1949 | — | #2,225 | 12 | |
| 1948 | — | #1,881 | 16 | |
| 1947 | — | #1,916 | 16 | |
| 1946 | — | #1,355 | 27 | |
| 1945 | — | #1,697 | 16 | |
| 1944 | — | #1,683 | 17 | |
| 1943 | — | #1,486 | 22 | |
| 1942 | — | #1,730 | 17 | |
| 1941 | — | #1,821 | 15 | |
| 1940 | — | #1,471 | 21 | |
| 1939 | — | #1,636 | 17 | |
| 1938 | — | #1,559 | 19 | |
| 1937 | — | #1,403 | 23 | |
| 1936 | — | #1,801 | 15 | |
| 1935 | — | #1,123 | 34 | |
| 1934 | — | #1,266 | 28 | |
| 1933 | — | #1,361 | 24 | |
| 1932 | — | #1,324 | 27 | |
| 1931 | — | #1,361 | 26 | |
| 1930 | — | #1,283 | 31 | |
| 1929 | — | #1,378 | 27 | |
| 1928 | #4,725 | 5 | #1,125 | 39 |
| 1927 | — | #1,163 | 38 | |
| 1926 | — | #1,379 | 28 | |
| 1925 | #4,028 | 7 | #1,053 | 43 |
| 1924 | #4,434 | 6 | #1,169 | 38 |
| 1923 | #4,376 | 6 | #1,026 | 47 |
| 1922 | #5,009 | 5 | #1,196 | 36 |
| 1921 | — | #1,026 | 46 | |
| 1920 | #4,398 | 6 | #960 | 52 |
| 1919 | — | #927 | 52 | |
| 1918 | #4,291 | 6 | #1,062 | 41 |
| 1917 | — | #900 | 50 | |
| 1916 | #3,258 | 8 | #1,013 | 40 |
| 1915 | — | #952 | 43 | |
| 1914 | #3,188 | 6 | #1,101 | 27 |
| 1913 | #2,540 | 7 | #789 | 36 |
| 1912 | — | #935 | 23 | |
| 1911 | — | #982 | 12 | |
| 1910 | — | #859 | 13 | |
| 1909 | — | #1,020 | 9 | |
| 1908 | — | #1,113 | 7 | |
| 1907 | — | #1,200 | 6 | |
| 1906 | — | #1,253 | 5 | |
| 1905 | — | #836 | 9 | |
| 1904 | — | #966 | 7 | |
| 1903 | — | #1,130 | 5 | |
| 1902 | — | #651 | 12 | |
| 1901 | — | #779 | 8 | |
| 1900 | — | #1,162 | 6 | |
| 1899 | — | #786 | 8 | |
| 1898 | — | #523 | 16 | |
| 1897 | — | — | ||
| 1896 | — | #674 | 11 | |
| 1895 | — | #872 | 7 | |
| 1894 | — | #857 | 7 | |
| 1893 | — | #1,035 | 5 | |
| 1892 | — | #861 | 7 | |
| 1891 | — | — | ||
| 1890 | — | #884 | 6 | |
| 1889 | — | #722 | 8 | |
| 1888 | — | — | ||
| 1887 | — | — | ||
| 1886 | — | — | ||
| 1885 | — | #936 | 5 | |
| 1884 | — | #663 | 9 | |
| 1883 | — | — | ||
| 1882 | — | — | ||
| 1881 | — | — | ||
| 1880 | — | — | ||
First appearance
1913
The first year at least five girls were named Oakley! It came in at #2,540, and was given to 7 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1915, when fewer than 5 girls a year got the name.
Where Oakley 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
- Utah#23 · 1 in 176
- Idaho#24 · 1 in 175
- West Virginia#26 · 1 in 149
- Mississippi#36 · 1 in 222
- Arkansas#50 · 1 in 258
Best ever in a state: #13 in Utah, 2022.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utah | #23 | 97 | 1 in 176 |
| Idaho | #24 | 41 | 1 in 175 |
| West Virginia | #26 | 34 | 1 in 149 |
| Mississippi | #36 | 40 | 1 in 222 |
| Arkansas | #50 | 41 | 1 in 258 |
| Iowa | #53 | 46 | 1 in 256 |
| Montana | #55 | 14 | 1 in 202 |
| Kentucky | #58 | 59 | 1 in 292 |
| Wyoming | #58 | 6 | 1 in 135 |
| Ohio | #71 | 123 | 1 in 384 |
| Nebraska | #72 | 25 | 1 in 284 |
| Vermont | #75 | 5 | 1 in 195 |
| Tennessee | #76 | 84 | 1 in 382 |
| Michigan | #79 | 88 | 1 in 406 |
| Missouri | #81 | 66 | 1 in 368 |
| Kansas | #89 | 33 | 1 in 358 |
| South Dakota | #97 | 10 | 1 in 305 |
| Oklahoma | #103 | 35 | 1 in 422 |
| Alabama | #106 | 42 | 1 in 436 |
| Indiana | #112 | 58 | 1 in 481 |
| South Carolina | #114 | 38 | 1 in 481 |
| Louisiana | #127 | 32 | 1 in 512 |
| North Carolina | #130 | 76 | 1 in 612 |
| Oregon | #131 | 25 | 1 in 522 |
| Alaska | #134 | 5 | 1 in 331 |
| Georgia | #140 | 70 | 1 in 646 |
| New Hampshire | #149 | 8 | 1 in 475 |
| Washington | #149 | 47 | 1 in 614 |
| Nevada | #150 | 16 | 1 in 575 |
| Wisconsin | #154 | 34 | 1 in 596 |
| Minnesota | #159 | 34 | 1 in 632 |
| Arizona | #164 | 39 | 1 in 724 |
| Virginia | #175 | 46 | 1 in 734 |
| Maine | #176 | 6 | 1 in 519 |
| North Dakota | #195 | 5 | 1 in 540 |
| Illinois | #203 | 49 | 1 in 905 |
| New Mexico | #217 | 7 | 1 in 668 |
| Colorado | #223 | 28 | 1 in 833 |
| Florida | #239 | 79 | 1 in 1,098 |
| Pennsylvania | #242 | 47 | 1 in 993 |
| Texas | #274 | 126 | 1 in 1,274 |
| California | #359 | 91 | 1 in 1,777 |
| New Jersey | #535 | 14 | 1 in 2,536 |
| Connecticut | #540 | 5 | 1 in 2,301 |
| New York | #548 | 30 | 1 in 2,611 |
| Maryland | #549 | 9 | 1 in 2,221 |
| Massachusetts | #564 | 9 | 1 in 2,670 |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
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 Oakley
Momentum · girls
Rising
- 128 spots since 2020 (#284 → #156)
- Biggest jump: 338 spots in 2013
- Biggest drop: 4 spots in 2024
Rise & fade · girls
110 yrs to peak
- Debuted 1913
- Peaked 2023 at #153 (1,884 births)
- Not yet halved from its peak
Top of the charts · girls
Top 1,000 for 13 yrs
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 13 yrs · run 2013–2025
Share of babies · girls
1 in 831
- Highest: 1 in 831 girls born in 2025 were named Oakley (0.12%)
- Its best rank, #153 in 2023, was only 1 in 852 (0.12%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
Era · girls
The 2020s
- 66.6% of all girls named Oakley (10,227) were born in this decade
Girls or boys?
Flipped in 2016
- Mostly boys until 2015, mostly girls since
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1910s | 27 | #2,540 (1913) | #3,319 |
| 1920s | 35 | #4,028 (1925) | #4,495 |
| 1930s | 0 | — | — |
| 1940s | 0 | — | — |
| 1950s | 0 | — | — |
| 1960s | 0 | — | — |
| 1970s | 0 | — | — |
| 1980s | 11 | #9,015 (1983) | #9,846 |
| 1990s | 124 | #5,039 (1999) | #6,806 |
| 2000s | 464 | #2,165 (2009) | #3,705 |
| 2010s | 4,472 | #349 (2019) | #855 |
| 2020s | 10,227 | #153 (2023) | #183 |
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 Oakley ranked and which names it was up against. Click a point on the chart, or pick a year: