Oakley
#156 for girls in 2025, 1,933 births · #454 for boys in 2025, 688 births
Given to girls 57.4% of the time
- 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
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 | #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 | — | — | ||
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 2023
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Utah#14 · 1 in 143
- Wyoming#19 · 1 in 87
- Idaho#22 · 1 in 144
- West Virginia#31 · 1 in 164
- Arkansas#32 · 1 in 226
Best ever in a state: #13 in Utah, 2022.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utah | #14 | 113 | 1 in 143 |
| Wyoming | #19 | 10 | 1 in 87 |
| Idaho | #22 | 45 | 1 in 144 |
| West Virginia | #31 | 31 | 1 in 164 |
| Arkansas | #32 | 46 | 1 in 226 |
| Montana | #33 | 17 | 1 in 156 |
| Alaska | #53 | 9 | 1 in 180 |
| Nebraska | #59 | 24 | 1 in 290 |
| Oklahoma | #62 | 45 | 1 in 322 |
| South Dakota | #69 | 12 | 1 in 232 |
| Kentucky | #70 | 51 | 1 in 332 |
| Missouri | #70 | 65 | 1 in 361 |
| Ohio | #73 | 120 | 1 in 391 |
| Oregon | #74 | 37 | 1 in 333 |
| North Dakota | #76 | 10 | 1 in 248 |
| Kansas | #81 | 34 | 1 in 332 |
| Tennessee | #83 | 78 | 1 in 404 |
| Indiana | #84 | 68 | 1 in 409 |
| Mississippi | #99 | 22 | 1 in 430 |
| Alabama | #105 | 42 | 1 in 443 |
| Louisiana | #105 | 37 | 1 in 474 |
| Iowa | #108 | 28 | 1 in 419 |
| Colorado | #112 | 44 | 1 in 491 |
| Maine | #128 | 8 | 1 in 374 |
| Michigan | #132 | 60 | 1 in 588 |
| New Hampshire | #139 | 9 | 1 in 414 |
| New Mexico | #141 | 10 | 1 in 472 |
| Washington | #143 | 45 | 1 in 628 |
| Arizona | #149 | 44 | 1 in 638 |
| Nevada | #157 | 15 | 1 in 593 |
| Wisconsin | #160 | 33 | 1 in 619 |
| Virginia | #184 | 42 | 1 in 791 |
| Pennsylvania | #189 | 57 | 1 in 819 |
| South Carolina | #199 | 23 | 1 in 779 |
| North Carolina | #201 | 51 | 1 in 871 |
| Minnesota | #206 | 27 | 1 in 776 |
| Georgia | #227 | 46 | 1 in 986 |
| Florida | #248 | 74 | 1 in 1,150 |
| Illinois | #252 | 41 | 1 in 1,087 |
| Maryland | #259 | 21 | 1 in 995 |
| Texas | #262 | 137 | 1 in 1,184 |
| New York | #357 | 48 | 1 in 1,620 |
| California | #502 | 68 | 1 in 2,425 |
| Massachusetts | #502 | 10 | 1 in 2,335 |
| Connecticut | #526 | 5 | 1 in 2,282 |
| New Jersey | #630 | 12 | 1 in 2,964 |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
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
- 1 spot since 2024 (#157 → #156)
- 128 spots since 2020 (#284 → #156)
- 457 spots since 2015 (#613 → #156)
- Biggest jump: 338 spots in 2013 (#1,264 → #926)
- Biggest drop: 4 spots in 2024 (#153 → #157)
- Debuted 1913
- Peaked 2023 at #153 (1,884 births)
- Not yet halved from its peak
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 13 yrs · run 2013–2025
- 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
- 66.6% of all girls named Oakley (10,227) were born in this decade
- 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.
Oakley in 2023
Top girls' names in 2023
Top boys' names in 2023
More about 2023
girls
1,604,582 girls got a published name in 2023; 1 in 852 of them was named Oakley, which outranked 99.1% of the 17,615 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 7.2% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
1,710,576 boys got a published name in 2023; 1 in 2,128 of them was named Oakley, which outranked 97.2% of the 14,215 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 7.8% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.