Davis
#5,099 for girls in 2025, 25 births · #668 for boys in 2025, 409 births
Given to boys 96.9% of the time
- Peak · boys
- 1901 · 29 births
- Debut · boys
- 17 births
- In top 100 · boys
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · boys
- 32,076since 1880
Davis over time
Rank among boys' names. Davis has never cracked the top 300 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 | #5,099 | 25 | #668 | 409 |
| 2024 | #6,167 | 19 | #644 | 432 |
| 2023 | #5,390 | 23 | #614 | 456 |
| 2022 | #4,041 | 36 | #632 | 441 |
| 2021 | #6,174 | 19 | #557 | 507 |
| 2020 | #4,078 | 34 | #553 | 511 |
| 2019 | #5,306 | 24 | #538 | 529 |
| 2018 | #4,458 | 31 | #507 | 561 |
| 2017 | #4,220 | 34 | #492 | 587 |
| 2016 | #4,990 | 27 | #490 | 620 |
| 2015 | #5,458 | 24 | #474 | 629 |
| 2014 | #5,625 | 23 | #447 | 666 |
| 2013 | #6,462 | 19 | #443 | 648 |
| 2012 | #4,601 | 31 | #416 | 685 |
| 2011 | #7,783 | 15 | #435 | 628 |
| 2010 | #7,217 | 17 | #420 | 657 |
| 2009 | #8,888 | 13 | #427 | 665 |
| 2008 | #7,742 | 16 | #408 | 725 |
| 2007 | #7,394 | 17 | #395 | 756 |
| 2006 | #6,840 | 18 | #404 | 732 |
| 2005 | #6,528 | 18 | #394 | 730 |
| 2004 | #4,949 | 26 | #374 | 743 |
| 2003 | #6,055 | 19 | #370 | 704 |
| 2002 | #6,129 | 18 | #390 | 667 |
| 2001 | #6,322 | 17 | #362 | 733 |
| 2000 | #4,527 | 26 | #381 | 681 |
| 1999 | #5,896 | 17 | #371 | 704 |
| 1998 | #7,532 | 12 | #375 | 677 |
| 1997 | #6,163 | 15 | #376 | 645 |
| 1996 | #4,739 | 21 | #409 | 567 |
| 1995 | #10,514 | 7 | #409 | 560 |
| 1994 | #7,097 | 12 | #424 | 542 |
| 1993 | #7,038 | 12 | #460 | 457 |
| 1992 | #8,065 | 10 | #512 | 392 |
| 1991 | #7,987 | 10 | #590 | 297 |
| 1990 | #7,303 | 11 | #597 | 281 |
| 1989 | #8,761 | 8 | #570 | 290 |
| 1988 | #7,691 | 9 | #559 | 272 |
| 1987 | #11,325 | 5 | #574 | 250 |
| 1986 | #9,545 | 6 | #575 | 240 |
| 1985 | — | #651 | 181 | |
| 1984 | — | #647 | 178 | |
| 1983 | — | #682 | 157 | |
| 1982 | — | #665 | 172 | |
| 1981 | #10,411 | 5 | #682 | 161 |
| 1980 | #9,095 | 6 | #741 | 140 |
| 1979 | — | #747 | 134 | |
| 1978 | — | #760 | 123 | |
| 1977 | #9,652 | 5 | #805 | 113 |
| 1976 | — | #776 | 114 | |
| 1975 | #7,984 | 6 | #831 | 100 |
| 1974 | — | #867 | 85 | |
| 1973 | #6,666 | 7 | #796 | 99 |
| 1972 | — | #822 | 95 | |
| 1971 | — | #755 | 118 | |
| 1970 | — | #714 | 132 | |
| 1969 | — | #782 | 97 | |
| 1968 | #7,016 | 5 | #746 | 99 |
| 1967 | #6,042 | 6 | #692 | 115 |
| 1966 | — | #713 | 108 | |
| 1965 | — | #688 | 117 | |
| 1964 | — | #742 | 107 | |
| 1963 | #6,592 | 5 | #698 | 123 |
| 1962 | — | #725 | 112 | |
| 1961 | — | #668 | 138 | |
| 1960 | — | #672 | 135 | |
| 1959 | — | #653 | 138 | |
| 1958 | #6,103 | 5 | #654 | 138 |
| 1957 | #5,377 | 6 | #689 | 123 |
| 1956 | — | #648 | 137 | |
| 1955 | — | #599 | 151 | |
| 1954 | — | #614 | 144 | |
| 1953 | — | #631 | 128 | |
| 1952 | #5,563 | 5 | #586 | 142 |
| 1951 | — | #577 | 144 | |
| 1950 | #5,301 | 5 | #610 | 126 |
| 1949 | #3,393 | 10 | #535 | 154 |
| 1948 | — | #523 | 160 | |
| 1947 | — | #556 | 147 | |
| 1946 | — | #529 | 146 | |
| 1945 | — | #533 | 125 | |
| 1944 | #4,054 | 6 | #633 | 94 |
| 1943 | — | #550 | 130 | |
| 1942 | #3,444 | 8 | #556 | 122 |
| 1941 | #3,030 | 9 | #571 | 108 |
| 1940 | — | #541 | 118 | |
| 1939 | — | #536 | 114 | |
| 1938 | — | #527 | 122 | |
| 1937 | — | #536 | 117 | |
| 1936 | — | #510 | 122 | |
| 1935 | #3,156 | 8 | #566 | 104 |
| 1934 | — | #545 | 117 | |
| 1933 | #3,109 | 8 | #591 | 96 |
| 1932 | #4,411 | 5 | #556 | 113 |
| 1931 | #4,331 | 5 | #529 | 120 |
| 1930 | #2,845 | 10 | #572 | 109 |
| 1929 | #2,921 | 10 | #564 | 110 |
| 1928 | #2,768 | 11 | #518 | 135 |
| 1927 | #2,095 | 18 | #508 | 142 |
| 1926 | #1,883 | 21 | #552 | 122 |
| 1925 | #2,283 | 16 | #516 | 140 |
| 1924 | #2,514 | 14 | #465 | 174 |
| 1923 | #3,641 | 8 | #554 | 125 |
| 1922 | #2,780 | 12 | #526 | 140 |
| 1921 | #3,400 | 9 | #521 | 142 |
| 1920 | #3,957 | 7 | #576 | 117 |
| 1919 | — | #486 | 150 | |
| 1918 | — | #519 | 133 | |
| 1917 | #3,092 | 9 | #549 | 114 |
| 1916 | #3,552 | 7 | #534 | 115 |
| 1915 | #2,900 | 9 | #550 | 104 |
| 1914 | #2,638 | 8 | #555 | 80 |
| 1913 | — | #597 | 54 | |
| 1912 | — | #592 | 47 | |
| 1911 | — | #533 | 31 | |
| 1910 | — | #430 | 40 | |
| 1909 | — | #615 | 19 | |
| 1908 | — | #566 | 20 | |
| 1907 | — | #559 | 19 | |
| 1906 | — | #363 | 33 | |
| 1905 | — | #491 | 21 | |
| 1904 | — | #431 | 24 | |
| 1903 | — | #430 | 22 | |
| 1902 | — | #862 | 8 | |
| 1901 | — | #334 | 29 | |
| 1900 | — | #534 | 20 | |
| 1899 | — | #583 | 12 | |
| 1898 | — | #573 | 14 | |
| 1897 | — | #652 | 11 | |
| 1896 | — | #424 | 21 | |
| 1895 | — | #556 | 14 | |
| 1894 | — | #594 | 12 | |
| 1893 | — | #459 | 16 | |
| 1892 | — | #422 | 20 | |
| 1891 | — | #441 | 16 | |
| 1890 | — | #405 | 20 | |
| 1889 | — | #388 | 21 | |
| 1888 | — | #430 | 19 | |
| 1887 | — | #516 | 12 | |
| 1886 | — | #417 | 18 | |
| 1885 | — | #388 | 21 | |
| 1884 | — | #570 | 11 | |
| 1883 | — | #556 | 11 | |
| 1882 | — | #652 | 9 | |
| 1881 | — | #487 | 13 | |
| 1880 | — | #425 | 17 | |
In the first year the SSA published name data, Davis was already there! It came in at #425, and was given to 17 baby boys.
Quietest stretch: 1902, when fewer than 9 boys a year got the name.
See more about Davis
- 24 spots since 2024 (#644 → #668)
- 115 spots since 2020 (#553 → #668)
- 194 spots since 2015 (#474 → #668)
- Biggest jump: 432 spots in 1903 (#862 → #430)
- Biggest drop: 528 spots in 1902 (#334 → #862)
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 1901 at #334 (29 births)
- Births halved by 1902, 1 yr later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 146 yrs · run 1880–2025
- Highest: 1 in 2,651 boys born in 2001 were named Davis (0.04%)
- Latest: 1 in 4,176 boys born in 2025 (0.02%)
- Its best rank, #334 in 1901, was only 1 in 3,671 (0.03%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
- 22.2% of all boys named Davis (7,136) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 152 | #388 (1885) | #483 |
| 1890s | 156 | #405 (1890) | #511 |
| 1900s | 215 | #334 (1901) | #519 |
| 1910s | 868 | #430 (1910) | #535 |
| 1920s | 1,347 | #465 (1924) | #530 |
| 1930s | 1,134 | #510 (1936) | #547 |
| 1940s | 1,304 | #523 (1948) | #553 |
| 1950s | 1,371 | #577 (1951) | #626 |
| 1960s | 1,151 | #668 (1961) | #713 |
| 1970s | 1,113 | #714 (1970) | #787 |
| 1980s | 2,041 | #559 (1988) | #635 |
| 1990s | 5,122 | #371 (1999) | #452 |
| 2000s | 7,136 | #362 (2001) | #391 |
| 2010s | 6,210 | #416 (2012) | #466 |
| 2020s | 2,756 | #553 (2020) | #611 |
All figures count published births only (names given to at least 5 boys in a year). Registrations before 1937 are incomplete, so early shares and totals run low.
Davis in 1932
Top girls' names in 1932
Top boys' names in 1932
More about 1932
girls
1,067,148 girls got a published name in 1932; 1 in 213,430 of them was named Davis, which outranked 13.5% of the 5,098 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 23.0% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
Tied with 687 names at #4,411; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
1,044,157 boys got a published name in 1932; 1 in 9,240 of them was named Davis, which outranked 87.0% of the 4,284 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 33.6% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).