Ashleigh
#6,838 for girls in 2025, 16 births · Last seen for boys in 2008 at #11,037
Given to girls 99.7% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 1991 · 1,717 births
- Debut · girls
- 9 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 31,861since 1966
Ashleigh over time
Rank among girls' names. Ashleigh has never cracked the top 100 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 | #6,838 | 16 | — | |
| 2024 | #4,772 | 28 | — | |
| 2023 | #5,752 | 21 | — | |
| 2022 | #4,907 | 27 | — | |
| 2021 | #4,167 | 34 | — | |
| 2020 | #4,005 | 35 | — | |
| 2019 | #3,611 | 42 | — | |
| 2018 | #3,004 | 54 | — | |
| 2017 | #2,432 | 74 | — | |
| 2016 | #2,188 | 88 | — | |
| 2015 | #1,823 | 114 | — | |
| 2014 | #1,908 | 105 | — | |
| 2013 | #1,624 | 132 | — | |
| 2012 | #1,340 | 175 | — | |
| 2011 | #1,070 | 230 | — | |
| 2010 | #1,115 | 221 | — | |
| 2009 | #945 | 282 | — | |
| 2008 | #925 | 296 | #11,037 | 6 |
| 2007 | #749 | 389 | — | |
| 2006 | #690 | 410 | #12,055 | 5 |
| 2005 | #519 | 565 | — | |
| 2004 | #417 | 731 | — | |
| 2003 | #359 | 852 | #10,894 | 5 |
| 2002 | #275 | 1,139 | — | |
| 2001 | #338 | 907 | — | |
| 2000 | #337 | 916 | — | |
| 1999 | #343 | 875 | — | |
| 1998 | #288 | 1,040 | — | |
| 1997 | #265 | 1,097 | — | |
| 1996 | #238 | 1,180 | — | |
| 1995 | #240 | 1,191 | #7,792 | 6 |
| 1994 | #206 | 1,414 | — | |
| 1993 | #188 | 1,546 | — | |
| 1992 | #197 | 1,512 | — | |
| 1991 | #176 | 1,717 | — | |
| 1990 | #178 | 1,623 | — | |
| 1989 | #200 | 1,330 | #2,902 | 21 |
| 1988 | #198 | 1,314 | #6,426 | 6 |
| 1987 | #201 | 1,348 | #5,459 | 7 |
| 1986 | #211 | 1,256 | #4,130 | 10 |
| 1985 | #203 | 1,278 | #6,523 | 5 |
| 1984 | #250 | 997 | #4,973 | 7 |
| 1983 | #248 | 947 | — | |
| 1982 | #413 | 552 | #6,385 | 5 |
| 1981 | #397 | 569 | — | |
| 1980 | #621 | 293 | — | |
| 1979 | #794 | 199 | — | |
| 1978 | #939 | 150 | — | |
| 1977 | #1,023 | 131 | — | |
| 1976 | #1,252 | 89 | — | |
| 1975 | #1,404 | 75 | — | |
| 1974 | #1,881 | 46 | — | |
| 1973 | #1,832 | 46 | — | |
| 1972 | #1,890 | 44 | — | |
| 1971 | #1,730 | 52 | — | |
| 1970 | #4,038 | 14 | — | |
| 1969 | #3,102 | 19 | — | |
| 1968 | #3,456 | 15 | — | |
| 1967 | #4,300 | 10 | — | |
| 1966 | #4,493 | 9 | — | |
| 1965 | — | — | ||
| 1964 | — | — | ||
| 1963 | — | — | ||
| 1962 | — | — | ||
| 1961 | — | — | ||
| 1960 | — | — | ||
| 1959 | — | — | ||
| 1958 | — | — | ||
| 1957 | — | — | ||
| 1956 | — | — | ||
| 1955 | — | — | ||
| 1954 | — | — | ||
| 1953 | — | — | ||
| 1952 | — | — | ||
| 1951 | — | — | ||
| 1950 | — | — | ||
| 1949 | — | — | ||
| 1948 | — | — | ||
| 1947 | — | — | ||
| 1946 | — | — | ||
| 1945 | — | — | ||
| 1944 | — | — | ||
| 1943 | — | — | ||
| 1942 | — | — | ||
| 1941 | — | — | ||
| 1940 | — | — | ||
| 1939 | — | — | ||
| 1938 | — | — | ||
| 1937 | — | — | ||
| 1936 | — | — | ||
| 1935 | — | — | ||
| 1934 | — | — | ||
| 1933 | — | — | ||
| 1932 | — | — | ||
| 1931 | — | — | ||
| 1930 | — | — | ||
| 1929 | — | — | ||
| 1928 | — | — | ||
| 1927 | — | — | ||
| 1926 | — | — | ||
| 1925 | — | — | ||
| 1924 | — | — | ||
| 1923 | — | — | ||
| 1922 | — | — | ||
| 1921 | — | — | ||
| 1920 | — | — | ||
| 1919 | — | — | ||
| 1918 | — | — | ||
| 1917 | — | — | ||
| 1916 | — | — | ||
| 1915 | — | — | ||
| 1914 | — | — | ||
| 1913 | — | — | ||
| 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 Ashleigh! It came in at #4,493, and was given to 9 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1966–1967, when fewer than 11 girls a year got the name.
Where Ashleigh is popular in 2004
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- New Hampshire#222 · 1 in 936
- Virginia#234 · 1 in 1,088
- Maryland#242 · 1 in 1,114
- North Carolina#248 · 1 in 1,170
- Mississippi#264 · 1 in 1,066
Best ever in a state: #71 in Virginia, 1993.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| New Hampshire | #222 | 5 | 1 in 936 |
| Virginia | #234 | 34 | 1 in 1,088 |
| Maryland | #242 | 22 | 1 in 1,114 |
| North Carolina | #248 | 38 | 1 in 1,170 |
| Mississippi | #264 | 11 | 1 in 1,066 |
| South Carolina | #280 | 14 | 1 in 1,223 |
| Louisiana | #282 | 17 | 1 in 1,223 |
| Michigan | #314 | 30 | 1 in 1,608 |
| New Mexico | #314 | 7 | 1 in 1,165 |
| Kansas | #315 | 10 | 1 in 1,355 |
| Colorado | #319 | 18 | 1 in 1,372 |
| Iowa | #330 | 9 | 1 in 1,508 |
| Ohio | #334 | 32 | 1 in 1,797 |
| Oklahoma | #346 | 11 | 1 in 1,532 |
| Alabama | #353 | 12 | 1 in 1,614 |
| Florida | #353 | 44 | 1 in 1,864 |
| Connecticut | #359 | 8 | 1 in 1,794 |
| Tennessee | #381 | 16 | 1 in 1,904 |
| Missouri | #385 | 14 | 1 in 2,028 |
| Georgia | #388 | 26 | 1 in 1,943 |
| Kentucky | #392 | 11 | 1 in 1,770 |
| New Jersey | #392 | 20 | 1 in 2,081 |
| Utah | #408 | 10 | 1 in 1,826 |
| Pennsylvania | #409 | 25 | 1 in 2,217 |
| Washington | #409 | 15 | 1 in 1,919 |
| Oregon | #424 | 9 | 1 in 1,766 |
| Arizona | #446 | 17 | 1 in 2,025 |
| Massachusetts | #457 | 11 | 1 in 2,664 |
| Texas | #468 | 62 | 1 in 2,569 |
| Indiana | #471 | 13 | 1 in 2,501 |
| Arkansas | #504 | 5 | 1 in 2,408 |
| Nevada | #512 | 5 | 1 in 2,162 |
| New York | #518 | 33 | 1 in 2,940 |
| Wisconsin | #539 | 8 | 1 in 3,110 |
| Illinois | #580 | 21 | 1 in 3,262 |
| California | #697 | 53 | 1 in 4,318 |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Minnesota | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| West Virginia | — | — | — |
| 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 Ashleigh
- 2,066 spots since 2024 (#4,772 → #6,838)
- 2,833 spots since 2020 (#4,005 → #6,838)
- 5,015 spots since 2015 (#1,823 → #6,838)
- Biggest jump: 224 spots in 1981 (#621 → #397)
- Biggest drop: 176 spots in 2008 (#749 → #925)
- Debuted 1966
- Peaked 1991 at #176 (1,717 births)
- Births halved by 2003, 12 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 32 yrs · run 1978–2009
- Highest: 1 in 1,092 girls born in 1991 were named Ashleigh (0.09%)
- Latest: 1 in 100,454 girls born in 2025 (0.00%)
- 41.4% of all girls named Ashleigh (13,195) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 53 | #3,102 (1969) | #3,838 |
| 1970s | 846 | #794 (1979) | #1,678 |
| 1980s | 9,884 | #198 (1988) | #294 |
| 1990s | 13,195 | #176 (1991) | #232 |
| 2000s | 6,487 | #275 (2002) | #555 |
| 2010s | 1,235 | #1,070 (2011) | #2,012 |
| 2020s | 161 | #4,005 (2020) | #5,074 |
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.
Ashleigh in 2004
Top girls' names in 2004
More about 2004
girls
1,836,250 girls got a published name in 2004; 1 in 2,512 of them was named Ashleigh, which outranked 97.8% of the 18,835 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 9.3% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).