Miguel
Last seen for girls in 2023 at #15,194 · #212 for boys in 2025, 1,661 births
Given to boys 99.5% of the time
- Peak · boys
- 2000 · 4,673 births
- Debut · boys
- 12 births
- In top 100 · boys
- 18 yrsof 146 years
- Total births · boys
- 190,566since 1880
Miguel over time
Rank among boys' names. 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 | — | #212 | 1,661 | |
| 2024 | — | #189 | 1,931 | |
| 2023 | #15,194 | 5 | #194 | 1,895 |
| 2022 | — | #185 | 2,040 | |
| 2021 | — | #196 | 1,950 | |
| 2020 | — | #189 | 2,053 | |
| 2019 | #15,539 | 5 | #178 | 2,185 |
| 2018 | — | #179 | 2,185 | |
| 2017 | — | #176 | 2,280 | |
| 2016 | #16,215 | 5 | #163 | 2,507 |
| 2015 | — | #161 | 2,573 | |
| 2014 | — | #147 | 2,757 | |
| 2013 | #14,582 | 6 | #135 | 2,888 |
| 2012 | — | #131 | 2,942 | |
| 2011 | — | #126 | 3,169 | |
| 2010 | #13,448 | 7 | #113 | 3,457 |
| 2009 | — | #100 | 4,174 | |
| 2008 | #7,073 | 18 | #101 | 4,450 |
| 2007 | #12,676 | 8 | #94 | 4,906 |
| 2006 | #13,606 | 7 | #89 | 4,903 |
| 2005 | #8,883 | 12 | #93 | 4,677 |
| 2004 | #7,828 | 14 | #96 | 4,525 |
| 2003 | #9,671 | 10 | #95 | 4,592 |
| 2002 | #6,392 | 17 | #89 | 4,644 |
| 2001 | #6,956 | 15 | #87 | 4,558 |
| 2000 | #5,491 | 20 | #86 | 4,673 |
| 1999 | #6,191 | 16 | #91 | 4,207 |
| 1998 | #5,799 | 17 | #90 | 4,256 |
| 1997 | #6,483 | 14 | #91 | 4,234 |
| 1996 | #4,306 | 24 | #91 | 4,160 |
| 1995 | #3,585 | 30 | #94 | 3,953 |
| 1994 | #3,536 | 31 | #94 | 4,033 |
| 1993 | #3,290 | 34 | #88 | 4,349 |
| 1992 | #2,869 | 41 | #90 | 4,173 |
| 1991 | #3,443 | 31 | #92 | 3,948 |
| 1990 | #3,022 | 37 | #101 | 3,696 |
| 1989 | #4,121 | 23 | #108 | 3,083 |
| 1988 | #3,690 | 25 | #111 | 2,735 |
| 1987 | #2,852 | 34 | #110 | 2,637 |
| 1986 | #4,347 | 18 | #111 | 2,578 |
| 1985 | #3,008 | 30 | #113 | 2,525 |
| 1984 | #2,625 | 35 | #113 | 2,419 |
| 1983 | #2,659 | 33 | #114 | 2,378 |
| 1982 | #3,530 | 23 | #110 | 2,630 |
| 1981 | #4,344 | 17 | #116 | 2,400 |
| 1980 | #2,940 | 30 | #127 | 2,177 |
| 1979 | #3,668 | 21 | #137 | 1,960 |
| 1978 | #2,801 | 29 | #144 | 1,829 |
| 1977 | #4,235 | 16 | #145 | 1,756 |
| 1976 | #3,287 | 21 | #143 | 1,758 |
| 1975 | #4,141 | 15 | #148 | 1,657 |
| 1974 | #6,900 | 7 | #147 | 1,658 |
| 1973 | #4,155 | 14 | #163 | 1,461 |
| 1972 | #3,062 | 21 | #174 | 1,421 |
| 1971 | #3,789 | 16 | #180 | 1,472 |
| 1970 | #4,761 | 11 | #197 | 1,344 |
| 1969 | #3,774 | 14 | #198 | 1,304 |
| 1968 | #3,789 | 13 | #212 | 1,107 |
| 1967 | #6,804 | 5 | #216 | 1,056 |
| 1966 | #5,809 | 6 | #220 | 1,017 |
| 1965 | #3,952 | 11 | #238 | 951 |
| 1964 | #4,636 | 9 | #249 | 951 |
| 1963 | #5,296 | 7 | #260 | 881 |
| 1962 | #5,293 | 7 | #259 | 871 |
| 1961 | — | #273 | 827 | |
| 1960 | #4,184 | 10 | #279 | 818 |
| 1959 | — | #281 | 799 | |
| 1958 | #4,520 | 8 | #275 | 771 |
| 1957 | — | #278 | 742 | |
| 1956 | #3,186 | 14 | #284 | 668 |
| 1955 | #5,208 | 6 | #288 | 613 |
| 1954 | — | #285 | 610 | |
| 1953 | — | #304 | 545 | |
| 1952 | — | #315 | 511 | |
| 1951 | — | #322 | 464 | |
| 1950 | — | #323 | 443 | |
| 1949 | #4,235 | 7 | #353 | 368 |
| 1948 | — | #343 | 383 | |
| 1947 | #5,295 | 5 | #403 | 292 |
| 1946 | — | #397 | 262 | |
| 1945 | — | #398 | 226 | |
| 1944 | — | #409 | 216 | |
| 1943 | — | #424 | 214 | |
| 1942 | — | #455 | 183 | |
| 1941 | — | #459 | 166 | |
| 1940 | — | #443 | 170 | |
| 1939 | — | #454 | 161 | |
| 1938 | — | #492 | 139 | |
| 1937 | — | #472 | 143 | |
| 1936 | — | #453 | 155 | |
| 1935 | — | #472 | 145 | |
| 1934 | #4,286 | 5 | #455 | 153 |
| 1933 | — | #402 | 179 | |
| 1932 | — | #427 | 171 | |
| 1931 | — | #408 | 189 | |
| 1930 | — | #382 | 221 | |
| 1929 | — | #362 | 245 | |
| 1928 | — | #396 | 226 | |
| 1927 | #4,286 | 6 | #428 | 201 |
| 1926 | — | #434 | 195 | |
| 1925 | — | #430 | 191 | |
| 1924 | — | #443 | 191 | |
| 1923 | — | #463 | 175 | |
| 1922 | — | #485 | 161 | |
| 1921 | — | #553 | 128 | |
| 1920 | — | #545 | 127 | |
| 1919 | — | #508 | 137 | |
| 1918 | — | #608 | 102 | |
| 1917 | — | #571 | 107 | |
| 1916 | — | #617 | 89 | |
| 1915 | — | #550 | 104 | |
| 1914 | — | #609 | 68 | |
| 1913 | — | #552 | 61 | |
| 1912 | — | #592 | 47 | |
| 1911 | — | #489 | 36 | |
| 1910 | — | #492 | 32 | |
| 1909 | — | #636 | 18 | |
| 1908 | — | #513 | 24 | |
| 1907 | — | #559 | 19 | |
| 1906 | — | #523 | 19 | |
| 1905 | — | #430 | 25 | |
| 1904 | — | #515 | 18 | |
| 1903 | — | #505 | 18 | |
| 1902 | — | #460 | 21 | |
| 1901 | — | #559 | 13 | |
| 1900 | — | #603 | 17 | |
| 1899 | — | #521 | 14 | |
| 1898 | — | #611 | 13 | |
| 1897 | — | #556 | 14 | |
| 1896 | — | #900 | 7 | |
| 1895 | — | #501 | 16 | |
| 1894 | — | #567 | 13 | |
| 1893 | — | #572 | 12 | |
| 1892 | — | #497 | 16 | |
| 1891 | — | #766 | 7 | |
| 1890 | — | #667 | 9 | |
| 1889 | — | #722 | 8 | |
| 1888 | — | — | ||
| 1887 | — | — | ||
| 1886 | — | #512 | 13 | |
| 1885 | — | #604 | 10 | |
| 1884 | — | #663 | 9 | |
| 1883 | — | #527 | 12 | |
| 1882 | — | #611 | 10 | |
| 1881 | — | #595 | 9 | |
| 1880 | — | #526 | 12 | |
In the first year the SSA published name data, Miguel was already there! It came in at #526, and was given to 12 baby boys.
Quietest stretch: 1887–1888, when fewer than 5 boys a year got the name.
Where Miguel is popular in 1967
- Rank in state
- Top 10
- 11–50
- 51–100
- 101–500
- 501+
- Not published
Hover or tap a state for its numbers.
- New York#84 · 1 in 540
- Texas#111 · 1 in 503
- New Jersey#118 · 1 in 830
- California#128 · 1 in 688
- Arizona#161 · 1 in 721
Best ever in a state: #28 in New Mexico, 1914.
Show every state
| State | Rank | Births | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York | #84 | 279 | 1 in 540 |
| Texas | #111 | 199 | 1 in 503 |
| New Jersey | #118 | 65 | 1 in 830 |
| California | #128 | 241 | 1 in 688 |
| Arizona | #161 | 20 | 1 in 721 |
| New Mexico | #177 | 11 | 1 in 820 |
| Illinois | #181 | 68 | 1 in 1,361 |
| Connecticut | #184 | 13 | 1 in 1,766 |
| Massachusetts | #209 | 14 | 1 in 3,365 |
| Colorado | #215 | 11 | 1 in 1,581 |
| Florida | #272 | 22 | 1 in 2,116 |
| Pennsylvania | #284 | 21 | 1 in 4,388 |
| Michigan | #362 | 14 | 1 in 5,556 |
| Louisiana | #373 | 11 | 1 in 3,140 |
| Washington | #377 | 5 | 1 in 5,112 |
| Indiana | #393 | 7 | 1 in 6,427 |
| Ohio | #483 | 8 | 1 in 11,240 |
| Alabama | — | — | — |
| Alaska | — | — | — |
| Arkansas | — | — | — |
| Delaware | — | — | — |
| District of Columbia | — | — | — |
| Georgia | — | — | — |
| Hawaii | — | — | — |
| Idaho | — | — | — |
| Iowa | — | — | — |
| Kansas | — | — | — |
| Kentucky | — | — | — |
| Maine | — | — | — |
| Maryland | — | — | — |
| Minnesota | — | — | — |
| Mississippi | — | — | — |
| Missouri | — | — | — |
| Montana | — | — | — |
| Nebraska | — | — | — |
| Nevada | — | — | — |
| New Hampshire | — | — | — |
| North Carolina | — | — | — |
| North Dakota | — | — | — |
| Oklahoma | — | — | — |
| Oregon | — | — | — |
| Rhode Island | — | — | — |
| South Carolina | — | — | — |
| South Dakota | — | — | — |
| Tennessee | — | — | — |
| Utah | — | — | — |
| Vermont | — | — | — |
| Virginia | — | — | — |
| West Virginia | — | — | — |
| Wisconsin | — | — | — |
| Wyoming | — | — | — |
Ranks are within each state; “1 in N” is out of the boys 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 Miguel
- 23 spots since 2024 (#189 → #212)
- 23 spots since 2020 (#189 → #212)
- 51 spots since 2015 (#161 → #212)
- Biggest jump: 344 spots in 1897 (#900 → #556)
- Biggest drop: 399 spots in 1896 (#501 → #900)
- Debuted 1880
- Peaked 2000 at #86 (4,673 births)
- Births halved by 2017, 17 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: 18 yrs · run 1991–2007
- Top 1,000: 144 yrs · run 1889–2025
- Highest: 1 in 418 boys born in 2002 were named Miguel (0.24%)
- Latest: 1 in 1,028 boys born in 2025 (0.10%)
- Its best rank, #86 in 2000, was only 1 in 420 (0.24%) — a smaller share of a much bigger birth year
- 24.2% of all boys named Miguel (46,102) were born in this decade
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 83 | #512 (1886) | #595 |
| 1890s | 121 | #497 (1892) | #616 |
| 1900s | 192 | #430 (1905) | #530 |
| 1910s | 783 | #489 (1911) | #559 |
| 1920s | 1,840 | #362 (1929) | #454 |
| 1930s | 1,656 | #382 (1930) | #442 |
| 1940s | 2,480 | #343 (1948) | #408 |
| 1950s | 6,166 | #275 (1958) | #296 |
| 1960s | 9,783 | #198 (1969) | #240 |
| 1970s | 16,316 | #137 (1979) | #158 |
| 1980s | 25,562 | #108 (1989) | #113 |
| 1990s | 41,009 | #88 (1993) | #92 |
| 2000s | 46,102 | #86 (2000) | #93 |
| 2010s | 26,943 | #113 (2010) | #151 |
| 2020s | 11,530 | #185 (2022) | #194 |
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.
Miguel in 1967
Top girls' names in 1967
Top boys' names in 1967
More about 1967
girls
1,651,025 girls got a published name in 1967; 1 in 330,205 of them was named Miguel, which outranked 13.3% of the 7,852 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 15.8% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
Tied with 1,048 names at #6,804; 3 shown. Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
1,743,811 boys got a published name in 1967; 1 in 1,651 of them was named Miguel, which outranked 95.3% of the 4,551 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 28.3% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.