Ansley
#1,309 for girls in 2025, 170 births · Last seen for boys in 2015 at #10,644
Given to girls 97.6% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 2011 · 470 births
- Debut · girls
- 5 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 11,878since 1960
Ansley over time
Rank among girls' names. Ansley has never cracked the top 600 here.
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 | #1,309 | 170 | — | |
| 2024 | #1,317 | 174 | — | |
| 2023 | #1,151 | 211 | — | |
| 2022 | #1,089 | 229 | — | |
| 2021 | #996 | 257 | — | |
| 2020 | #953 | 268 | — | |
| 2019 | #960 | 274 | — | |
| 2018 | #786 | 347 | — | |
| 2017 | #763 | 363 | — | |
| 2016 | #698 | 412 | — | |
| 2015 | #618 | 467 | #10,644 | 6 |
| 2014 | #617 | 464 | #10,717 | 6 |
| 2013 | #679 | 417 | #10,728 | 6 |
| 2012 | #695 | 404 | #8,864 | 8 |
| 2011 | #616 | 470 | #9,600 | 7 |
| 2010 | #637 | 462 | #8,139 | 9 |
| 2009 | #659 | 449 | #10,994 | 6 |
| 2008 | #719 | 414 | — | |
| 2007 | #706 | 414 | #9,788 | 7 |
| 2006 | #703 | 404 | #9,585 | 7 |
| 2005 | #656 | 421 | — | |
| 2004 | #663 | 412 | #9,948 | 6 |
| 2003 | #685 | 383 | #9,581 | 6 |
| 2002 | #680 | 370 | #10,667 | 5 |
| 2001 | #739 | 324 | #7,536 | 8 |
| 2000 | #762 | 300 | #6,839 | 9 |
| 1999 | #824 | 263 | #9,912 | 5 |
| 1998 | #750 | 289 | — | |
| 1997 | #872 | 234 | #8,110 | 6 |
| 1996 | #957 | 201 | — | |
| 1995 | #1,074 | 166 | — | |
| 1994 | #1,083 | 166 | #8,800 | 5 |
| 1993 | #1,290 | 131 | — | |
| 1992 | #1,434 | 112 | #8,435 | 5 |
| 1991 | #1,463 | 108 | — | |
| 1990 | #1,543 | 99 | #7,178 | 6 |
| 1989 | #1,479 | 98 | #5,615 | 8 |
| 1988 | #1,704 | 75 | #6,426 | 6 |
| 1987 | #1,647 | 74 | #6,951 | 5 |
| 1986 | #2,265 | 45 | #5,926 | 6 |
| 1985 | #1,948 | 56 | — | |
| 1984 | #2,299 | 42 | — | |
| 1983 | #2,360 | 40 | — | |
| 1982 | #2,369 | 41 | #5,003 | 7 |
| 1981 | #2,195 | 46 | #4,509 | 8 |
| 1980 | #2,391 | 40 | — | |
| 1979 | #2,931 | 29 | #6,056 | 5 |
| 1978 | #2,859 | 28 | — | |
| 1977 | #2,715 | 30 | — | |
| 1976 | #4,363 | 14 | #5,587 | 5 |
| 1975 | #3,259 | 21 | #5,464 | 5 |
| 1974 | #2,922 | 24 | — | |
| 1973 | #3,015 | 22 | #3,445 | 9 |
| 1972 | #5,109 | 10 | — | |
| 1971 | #4,534 | 12 | — | |
| 1970 | #3,712 | 16 | — | |
| 1969 | #5,057 | 9 | — | |
| 1968 | #4,489 | 10 | — | |
| 1967 | #4,300 | 10 | #3,966 | 5 |
| 1966 | #4,866 | 8 | — | |
| 1965 | #3,952 | 11 | — | |
| 1964 | — | — | ||
| 1963 | — | — | ||
| 1962 | #5,293 | 7 | — | |
| 1961 | #5,851 | 6 | — | |
| 1960 | #6,390 | 5 | — | |
| 1959 | — | — | ||
| 1958 | — | — | ||
| 1957 | — | — | ||
| 1956 | — | — | ||
| 1955 | — | — | ||
| 1954 | — | — | ||
| 1953 | — | #3,425 | 6 | |
| 1952 | — | — | ||
| 1951 | — | #3,714 | 5 | |
| 1950 | — | — | ||
| 1949 | — | — | ||
| 1948 | — | — | ||
| 1947 | — | #3,733 | 5 | |
| 1946 | — | — | ||
| 1945 | — | — | ||
| 1944 | — | #3,430 | 5 | |
| 1943 | — | — | ||
| 1942 | — | — | ||
| 1941 | — | — | ||
| 1940 | — | #3,130 | 6 | |
| 1939 | — | — | ||
| 1938 | — | — | ||
| 1937 | — | #3,518 | 5 | |
| 1936 | — | — | ||
| 1935 | — | — | ||
| 1934 | — | — | ||
| 1933 | — | #3,268 | 6 | |
| 1932 | — | — | ||
| 1931 | — | — | ||
| 1930 | — | #4,001 | 5 | |
| 1929 | — | — | ||
| 1928 | — | #4,151 | 5 | |
| 1927 | — | — | ||
| 1926 | — | #3,385 | 7 | |
| 1925 | — | #3,155 | 8 | |
| 1924 | — | — | ||
| 1923 | — | #4,239 | 5 | |
| 1922 | — | — | ||
| 1921 | — | — | ||
| 1920 | — | — | ||
| 1919 | — | #3,736 | 6 | |
| 1918 | — | #4,179 | 5 | |
| 1917 | — | #2,956 | 8 | |
| 1916 | — | #3,516 | 6 | |
| 1915 | — | — | ||
| 1914 | — | — | ||
| 1913 | — | #2,821 | 5 | |
| 1912 | — | — | ||
| 1911 | — | — | ||
| 1910 | — | — | ||
| 1909 | — | — | ||
| 1908 | — | — | ||
| 1907 | — | — | ||
| 1906 | — | — | ||
| 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 Ansley! It came in at #6,390, and was given to 5 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1963–1964, when fewer than 5 girls a year got the name.
Where Ansley is popular in 2020
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- Georgia#196 · 1 in 839
- Alabama#268 · 1 in 985
- West Virginia#326 · 1 in 1,089
- Tennessee#344 · 1 in 1,446
- Mississippi#361 · 1 in 1,268
Best ever in a state: #45 in Georgia, 2005.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgia | #196 | 53 | 1 in 839 |
| Alabama | #268 | 19 | 1 in 985 |
| West Virginia | #326 | 5 | 1 in 1,089 |
| Tennessee | #344 | 21 | 1 in 1,446 |
| Mississippi | #361 | 8 | 1 in 1,268 |
| South Carolina | #416 | 11 | 1 in 1,573 |
| Arkansas | #567 | 5 | 1 in 2,066 |
| Kentucky | #570 | 7 | 1 in 2,414 |
| North Carolina | #584 | 16 | 1 in 2,727 |
| Florida | #655 | 24 | 1 in 3,352 |
| Missouri | #747 | 7 | 1 in 3,497 |
| Indiana | #906 | 6 | 1 in 4,669 |
| Virginia | #1,014 | 6 | 1 in 5,690 |
| Texas | #1,032 | 26 | 1 in 5,882 |
| Ohio | #1,035 | 8 | 1 in 5,988 |
| Michigan | #1,218 | 5 | 1 in 7,570 |
| Illinois | #1,499 | 5 | 1 in 9,750 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arizona | — | — | — |
| California | — | — | — |
| Colorado | — | — | — |
| Connecticut | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Iowa | — | — | — |
| Kansas | — | — | — |
| Louisiana | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Maryland | — | — | — |
| Massachusetts | — | — | — |
| Minnesota | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| New Jersey | — | — | — |
| New Mexico | — | — | — |
| New York | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Oklahoma | — | — | — |
| Oregon | — | — | — |
| Pennsylvania | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Utah | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| Washington | — | — | — |
| 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 Ansley
- 8 spots since 2024 (#1,317 → #1,309)
- 356 spots since 2020 (#953 → #1,309)
- 691 spots since 2015 (#618 → #1,309)
- Biggest jump: 122 spots in 1998 (#872 → #750)
- Biggest drop: 174 spots in 2019 (#786 → #960)
- Debuted 1960
- Peaked 2011 at #616 (470 births)
- Births halved by 2022, 11 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 26 yrs · run 1996–2021
- Highest: 1 in 3,743 girls born in 2011 were named Ansley (0.03%)
- Latest: 1 in 9,455 girls born in 2025 (0.01%)
- 34.3% of all girls named Ansley (4,080) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 66 | #3,952 (1965) | #5,025 |
| 1970s | 206 | #2,715 (1977) | #3,542 |
| 1980s | 557 | #1,479 (1989) | #2,066 |
| 1990s | 1,769 | #750 (1998) | #1,129 |
| 2000s | 3,891 | #656 (2005) | #697 |
| 2010s | 4,080 | #616 (2011) | #707 |
| 2020s | 1,309 | #953 (2020) | #1,136 |
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.
Ansley in 2020
Top girls' names in 2020
More about 2020
girls
1,616,549 girls got a published name in 2020; 1 in 6,032 of them was named Ansley, which outranked 94.6% of the 17,527 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 7.9% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).