Is Amalia a boy or girl name?
Amalia is a girl name in the US. In 2024, 550 girls and 0 boys were named Amalia, so 100% were girls. Across 1880–2024, 100% of the 15,944 US babies named Amalia were girls.
- Boy rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Girl rank, 2024
- #552
- Babies named Amalia since 1880
- 15,944
- Most popular year
- 2023
- 575 babies
Boys and girls named Amalia, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 0 | 140 | 100% |
| 1890s | 0 | 203 | 100% |
| 1900s | 0 | 209 | 100% |
| 1910s | 0 | 559 | 100% |
| 1920s | 0 | 905 | 100% |
| 1930s | 0 | 543 | 100% |
| 1940s | 0 | 514 | 100% |
| 1950s | 0 | 659 | 100% |
| 1960s | 0 | 711 | 100% |
| 1970s | 0 | 866 | 100% |
| 1980s | 0 | 1,057 | 100% |
| 1990s | 0 | 1,367 | 100% |
| 2000s | 0 | 1,977 | 100% |
| 2010s | 0 | 3,522 | 100% |
| 2020s | 0 | 2,712 | 100% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 0 | – | 550 | #552 |
| 2023 | 0 | – | 575 | #528 |
| 2022 | 0 | – | 513 | #582 |
| 2021 | 0 | – | 559 | #546 |
| 2020 | 0 | – | 515 | #570 |
| 2019 | 0 | – | 501 | #603 |
| 2018 | 0 | – | 512 | #593 |
| 2017 | 0 | – | 495 | #612 |
| 2016 | 0 | – | 363 | #782 |
| 2015 | 0 | – | 339 | #827 |
| 2014 | 0 | – | 306 | #887 |
| 2013 | 0 | – | 271 | #933 |
| 2012 | 0 | – | 247 | #1,027 |
| 2011 | 0 | – | 257 | #990 |
| 2010 | 0 | – | 231 | #1,075 |
| 2009 | 0 | – | 243 | #1,058 |
| 2008 | 0 | – | 248 | #1,052 |
| 2007 | 0 | – | 220 | #1,163 |
| 2006 | 0 | – | 225 | #1,110 |
| 2005 | 0 | – | 187 | #1,216 |
| 2004 | 0 | – | 196 | #1,152 |
| 2003 | 0 | – | 192 | #1,135 |
| 2002 | 0 | – | 162 | #1,236 |
| 2001 | 0 | – | 155 | #1,266 |
| 2000 | 0 | – | 149 | #1,291 |
| 1999 | 0 | – | 135 | #1,330 |
| 1998 | 0 | – | 114 | #1,493 |
| 1997 | 0 | – | 138 | #1,273 |
| 1996 | 0 | – | 138 | #1,261 |
| 1995 | 0 | – | 144 | #1,188 |
| 1994 | 0 | – | 142 | #1,229 |
| 1993 | 0 | – | 139 | #1,243 |
| 1992 | 0 | – | 128 | #1,312 |
| 1991 | 0 | – | 145 | #1,195 |
| 1990 | 0 | – | 144 | #1,186 |
| 1989 | 0 | – | 126 | #1,250 |
| 1988 | 0 | – | 98 | #1,420 |
| 1987 | 0 | – | 100 | #1,364 |
| 1986 | 0 | – | 109 | #1,249 |
| 1985 | 0 | – | 110 | #1,243 |
| 1984 | 0 | – | 110 | #1,191 |
| 1983 | 0 | – | 86 | #1,379 |
| 1982 | 0 | – | 99 | #1,285 |
| 1981 | 0 | – | 121 | #1,134 |
| 1980 | 0 | – | 98 | #1,299 |
| 1979 | 0 | – | 91 | #1,349 |
| 1978 | 0 | – | 109 | #1,162 |
| 1977 | 0 | – | 81 | #1,381 |
| 1976 | 0 | – | 95 | #1,192 |
| 1975 | 0 | – | 84 | #1,309 |
| 1974 | 0 | – | 94 | #1,187 |
| 1973 | 0 | – | 92 | #1,175 |
| 1972 | 0 | – | 72 | #1,381 |
| 1971 | 0 | – | 77 | #1,376 |
| 1970 | 0 | – | 71 | #1,444 |
| 1969 | 0 | – | 66 | #1,440 |
| 1968 | 0 | – | 62 | #1,436 |
| 1967 | 0 | – | 72 | #1,268 |
| 1966 | 0 | – | 70 | #1,291 |
| 1965 | 0 | – | 68 | #1,323 |
| 1964 | 0 | – | 81 | #1,224 |
| 1963 | 0 | – | 80 | #1,226 |
| 1962 | 0 | – | 79 | #1,234 |
| 1961 | 0 | – | 72 | #1,305 |
| 1960 | 0 | – | 61 | #1,405 |
| 1959 | 0 | – | 58 | #1,407 |
| 1958 | 0 | – | 66 | #1,299 |
| 1957 | 0 | – | 83 | #1,160 |
| 1956 | 0 | – | 82 | #1,141 |
| 1955 | 0 | – | 67 | #1,230 |
| 1954 | 0 | – | 59 | #1,285 |
| 1953 | 0 | – | 60 | #1,248 |
| 1952 | 0 | – | 69 | #1,138 |
| 1951 | 0 | – | 54 | #1,266 |
| 1950 | 0 | – | 61 | #1,183 |
| 1949 | 0 | – | 62 | #1,154 |
| 1948 | 0 | – | 59 | #1,173 |
| 1947 | 0 | – | 57 | #1,193 |
| 1946 | 0 | – | 46 | #1,276 |
| 1945 | 0 | – | 46 | #1,155 |
| 1944 | 0 | – | 51 | #1,090 |
| 1943 | 0 | – | 55 | #1,078 |
| 1942 | 0 | – | 42 | #1,229 |
| 1941 | 0 | – | 46 | #1,088 |
| 1940 | 0 | – | 50 | #1,011 |
| 1939 | 0 | – | 35 | #1,240 |
| 1938 | 0 | – | 39 | #1,160 |
| 1937 | 0 | – | 36 | #1,196 |
| 1936 | 0 | – | 47 | #1,005 |
| 1935 | 0 | – | 41 | #1,084 |
| 1934 | 0 | – | 54 | #938 |
| 1933 | 0 | – | 63 | #845 |
| 1932 | 0 | – | 67 | #846 |
| 1931 | 0 | – | 74 | #784 |
| 1930 | 0 | – | 87 | #749 |
| 1929 | 0 | – | 84 | #763 |
| 1928 | 0 | – | 98 | #715 |
| 1927 | 0 | – | 90 | #761 |
| 1926 | 0 | – | 99 | #729 |
| 1925 | 0 | – | 73 | #870 |
| 1924 | 0 | – | 124 | #667 |
| 1923 | 0 | – | 99 | #729 |
| 1922 | 0 | – | 73 | #861 |
| 1921 | 0 | – | 78 | #837 |
| 1920 | 0 | – | 87 | #777 |
| 1919 | 0 | – | 78 | #797 |
| 1918 | 0 | – | 71 | #852 |
| 1917 | 0 | – | 71 | #816 |
| 1916 | 0 | – | 73 | #796 |
| 1915 | 0 | – | 74 | #768 |
| 1914 | 0 | – | 52 | #802 |
| 1913 | 0 | – | 45 | #782 |
| 1912 | 0 | – | 36 | #834 |
| 1911 | 0 | – | 28 | #811 |
| 1910 | 0 | – | 31 | #770 |
| 1909 | 0 | – | 27 | #773 |
| 1908 | 0 | – | 23 | #810 |
| 1907 | 0 | – | 22 | #792 |
| 1906 | 0 | – | 21 | #794 |
| 1905 | 0 | – | 17 | #901 |
| 1904 | 0 | – | 12 | #1,052 |
| 1903 | 0 | – | 21 | #736 |
| 1902 | 0 | – | 22 | #736 |
| 1901 | 0 | – | 17 | #798 |
| 1900 | 0 | – | 27 | #688 |
| 1899 | 0 | – | 21 | #682 |
| 1898 | 0 | – | 25 | #650 |
| 1897 | 0 | – | 24 | #629 |
| 1896 | 0 | – | 18 | #755 |
| 1895 | 0 | – | 19 | #726 |
| 1894 | 0 | – | 33 | #494 |
| 1893 | 0 | – | 16 | #740 |
| 1892 | 0 | – | 11 | #910 |
| 1891 | 0 | – | 20 | #590 |
| 1890 | 0 | – | 16 | #667 |
| 1889 | 0 | – | 15 | #659 |
| 1888 | 0 | – | 22 | #533 |
| 1887 | 0 | – | 20 | #499 |
| 1886 | 0 | – | 11 | #695 |
| 1885 | 0 | – | 19 | #486 |
| 1884 | 0 | – | 14 | #556 |
| 1883 | 0 | – | 8 | #696 |
| 1882 | 0 | – | 11 | #562 |
| 1881 | 0 | – | 11 | #507 |
| 1880 | 0 | – | 9 | #582 |
Highest rank
Amalia has never been ranked as a boy name. As a girl name, it reached #486 in 1885. Ranks count every name SSA published for that year and sex, so they go well past the top 1,000.
Names from the same era
These names were also most popular in the 2020s, with a similar number of babies. They can work as sibling or middle names that feel like they belong together.
Names spelled like Amalia
Source: US Social Security Administration baby name data, 1880–2024. Counts are Social Security card applications for US births; SSA leaves out names given to fewer than 5 babies in a year. Updated 2026-10-05. How these numbers are made.