Ruthann
#5,554 for girls in 2025, 22 births
- Peak · girls
- 1943 · 258 births
- Debut · girls
- 5 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 7,098since 1906
Ruthann over time
Rank among girls' names. Ruthann has never cracked the top 400 here.
Gaps mean fewer than 5 babies received the name that year, so the SSA doesn't publish it.
Show data table
| Year | girls | |
|---|---|---|
| rank | births | |
| 2025 | #5,554 | 22 |
| 2024 | #4,294 | 33 |
| 2023 | #4,746 | 28 |
| 2022 | #5,465 | 23 |
| 2021 | #5,091 | 25 |
| 2020 | #5,487 | 22 |
| 2019 | #6,698 | 17 |
| 2018 | #5,007 | 26 |
| 2017 | #3,848 | 39 |
| 2016 | #4,531 | 31 |
| 2015 | #5,458 | 24 |
| 2014 | #4,892 | 28 |
| 2013 | #4,543 | 31 |
| 2012 | #5,114 | 27 |
| 2011 | #5,063 | 27 |
| 2010 | #5,108 | 27 |
| 2009 | #5,226 | 27 |
| 2008 | #4,179 | 37 |
| 2007 | #5,230 | 27 |
| 2006 | #5,086 | 27 |
| 2005 | #4,195 | 33 |
| 2004 | #4,707 | 28 |
| 2003 | #5,235 | 23 |
| 2002 | #5,673 | 20 |
| 2001 | #3,940 | 32 |
| 2000 | #4,079 | 30 |
| 1999 | #3,718 | 32 |
| 1998 | #4,023 | 28 |
| 1997 | #4,239 | 25 |
| 1996 | #4,883 | 20 |
| 1995 | #4,846 | 20 |
| 1994 | #5,249 | 18 |
| 1993 | #4,524 | 22 |
| 1992 | #3,866 | 27 |
| 1991 | #3,817 | 27 |
| 1990 | #4,120 | 24 |
| 1989 | #3,893 | 25 |
| 1988 | #3,095 | 32 |
| 1987 | #2,531 | 40 |
| 1986 | #3,054 | 30 |
| 1985 | #2,860 | 32 |
| 1984 | #2,340 | 41 |
| 1983 | #2,310 | 41 |
| 1982 | #2,451 | 39 |
| 1981 | #2,231 | 45 |
| 1980 | #2,537 | 37 |
| 1979 | #2,477 | 37 |
| 1978 | #2,516 | 34 |
| 1977 | #2,063 | 46 |
| 1976 | #2,602 | 30 |
| 1975 | #1,986 | 44 |
| 1974 | #2,066 | 40 |
| 1973 | #2,064 | 39 |
| 1972 | #1,771 | 49 |
| 1971 | #2,137 | 38 |
| 1970 | #1,653 | 56 |
| 1969 | #1,355 | 71 |
| 1968 | #1,334 | 69 |
| 1967 | #1,164 | 83 |
| 1966 | #1,050 | 99 |
| 1965 | #1,337 | 67 |
| 1964 | #1,097 | 99 |
| 1963 | #1,003 | 113 |
| 1962 | #992 | 117 |
| 1961 | #866 | 151 |
| 1960 | #946 | 127 |
| 1959 | #959 | 121 |
| 1958 | #988 | 110 |
| 1957 | #1,002 | 108 |
| 1956 | #1,186 | 77 |
| 1955 | #1,050 | 92 |
| 1954 | #1,033 | 90 |
| 1953 | #1,103 | 77 |
| 1952 | #935 | 98 |
| 1951 | #772 | 132 |
| 1950 | #701 | 150 |
| 1949 | #646 | 164 |
| 1948 | #588 | 200 |
| 1947 | #593 | 206 |
| 1946 | #499 | 244 |
| 1945 | #485 | 221 |
| 1944 | #471 | 230 |
| 1943 | #459 | 258 |
| 1942 | #470 | 247 |
| 1941 | #465 | 224 |
| 1940 | #490 | 196 |
| 1939 | #479 | 194 |
| 1938 | #515 | 169 |
| 1937 | #563 | 145 |
| 1936 | #840 | 65 |
| 1935 | #1,055 | 43 |
| 1934 | #1,124 | 40 |
| 1933 | #1,244 | 33 |
| 1932 | #1,293 | 32 |
| 1931 | #1,175 | 37 |
| 1930 | #1,289 | 34 |
| 1929 | #1,306 | 33 |
| 1928 | #1,191 | 41 |
| 1927 | #1,523 | 29 |
| 1926 | #1,541 | 28 |
| 1925 | #1,443 | 32 |
| 1924 | #1,503 | 31 |
| 1923 | #1,736 | 24 |
| 1922 | #1,957 | 20 |
| 1921 | #2,195 | 17 |
| 1920 | #2,463 | 14 |
| 1919 | #3,817 | 7 |
| 1918 | #2,376 | 14 |
| 1917 | #2,879 | 10 |
| 1916 | #2,368 | 13 |
| 1915 | #4,274 | 5 |
| 1914 | #3,618 | 5 |
| 1913 | — | |
| 1912 | — | |
| 1911 | — | |
| 1910 | #2,398 | 5 |
| 1909 | — | |
| 1908 | — | |
| 1907 | — | |
| 1906 | #1,951 | 5 |
| 1905 | — | |
| 1904 | — | |
| 1903 | — | |
| 1902 | — | |
| 1901 | — | |
| 1900 | — | |
| 1899 | — | |
| 1898 | — | |
| 1897 | — | |
| 1896 | — | |
| 1895 | — | |
| 1894 | — | |
| 1893 | — | |
| 1892 | — | |
| 1891 | — | |
| 1890 | — | |
| 1889 | — | |
| 1888 | — | |
| 1887 | — | |
| 1886 | — | |
| 1885 | — | |
| 1884 | — | |
| 1883 | — | |
| 1882 | — | |
| 1881 | — | |
| 1880 | — | |
The first year at least five girls were named Ruthann! It came in at #1,951, and was given to 5 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1906–1915, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
Where Ruthann is popular in 1963
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Massachusetts#371 · 1 in 4,311
- Iowa#442 · 1 in 5,069
- New Jersey#484 · 1 in 5,227
- Minnesota#490 · 1 in 7,105
- Pennsylvania#543 · 1 in 7,270
Best ever in a state: #149 in Connecticut, 1943.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts | #371 | 12 | 1 in 4,311 |
| Iowa | #442 | 5 | 1 in 5,069 |
| New Jersey | #484 | 11 | 1 in 5,227 |
| Minnesota | #490 | 5 | 1 in 7,105 |
| Pennsylvania | #543 | 14 | 1 in 7,270 |
| Michigan | #664 | 8 | 1 in 10,008 |
| Ohio | #703 | 8 | 1 in 11,976 |
| Illinois | #931 | 6 | 1 in 16,521 |
| New York | #984 | 9 | 1 in 18,141 |
| California | #1,614 | 5 | 1 in 34,822 |
| Alabama | — | — | — |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arizona | — | — | — |
| Arkansas | — | — | — |
| Colorado | — | — | — |
| Connecticut | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Florida | — | — | — |
| Georgia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Indiana | — | — | — |
| Kansas | — | — | — |
| Kentucky | — | — | — |
| Louisiana | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Maryland | — | — | — |
| Mississippi | — | — | — |
| Missouri | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| New Mexico | — | — | — |
| North Carolina | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Oklahoma | — | — | — |
| Oregon | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Carolina | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Tennessee | — | — | — |
| Texas | — | — | — |
| Utah | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| Virginia | — | — | — |
| Washington | — | — | — |
| West Virginia | — | — | — |
| Wisconsin | — | — | — |
| 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 Ruthann
- 1,260 spots since 2024 (#4,294 → #5,554)
- 67 spots since 2020 (#5,487 → #5,554)
- 96 spots since 2015 (#5,458 → #5,554)
- Biggest jump: 277 spots in 1937 (#840 → #563)
- Biggest drop: 168 spots in 1953 (#935 → #1,103)
- Debuted 1906
- Peaked 1943 at #459 (258 births)
- Births halved by 1952, 9 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 22 yrs · run 1936–1952
- Highest: 1 in 5,393 girls born in 1941 were named Ruthann (0.02%)
- Latest: 1 in 73,058 girls born in 2025 (0.00%)
- Its best rank, #459 in 1943, was only 1 in 5,408 (0.02%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
- 30.9% of all girls named Ruthann (2,190) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1900s | 5 | #1,951 (1906) | #1,951 |
| 1910s | 59 | #2,368 (1916) | #3,104 |
| 1920s | 269 | #1,191 (1928) | #1,686 |
| 1930s | 792 | #479 (1939) | #958 |
| 1940s | 2,190 | #459 (1943) | #517 |
| 1950s | 1,055 | #701 (1950) | #973 |
| 1960s | 996 | #866 (1961) | #1,114 |
| 1970s | 413 | #1,653 (1970) | #2,134 |
| 1980s | 362 | #2,231 (1981) | #2,730 |
| 1990s | 243 | #3,718 (1999) | #4,329 |
| 2000s | 284 | #3,940 (2001) | #4,755 |
| 2010s | 277 | #3,848 (2017) | #5,026 |
| 2020s | 153 | #4,294 (2024) | #5,106 |
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.
Ruthann in 1963
Top girls' names in 1963
More about 1963
girls
1,927,507 girls got a published name in 1963; 1 in 17,058 of them was named Ruthann, which outranked 86.9% of the 7,661 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 16.1% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
- #997Melony114
- #997Sharyl114
- #997Shirlene114
- #1,003Ruthann113
- #1,003Lavern113
- #1,003Lina113
- #1,003Nan113
- #1,008Nena112
- #1,008Trudi112
- #1,010Anthony111
Tied with 4 names at #1,003; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.