Is Anabel a boy or girl name?
Anabel is a girl name in the US. In 2024, 43 girls and 0 boys were named Anabel, so 100% were girls. Across 1880–2024, 99.6% of the 9,781 US babies named Anabel were girls.
- Boy rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Girl rank, 2024
- #3,570
- Babies named Anabel since 1882
- 9,781
- Most popular year
- 2014
- 297 babies
Boys and girls named Anabel, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 0 | 55 | 100% |
| 1890s | 0 | 53 | 100% |
| 1900s | 0 | 87 | 100% |
| 1910s | 0 | 237 | 100% |
| 1920s | 0 | 272 | 100% |
| 1930s | 0 | 120 | 100% |
| 1940s | 0 | 70 | 100% |
| 1950s | 0 | 128 | 100% |
| 1960s | 0 | 310 | 100% |
| 1970s | 0 | 641 | 100% |
| 1980s | 15 | 1,409 | 98.9% |
| 1990s | 20 | 1,871 | 98.9% |
| 2000s | 0 | 2,290 | 100% |
| 2010s | 0 | 1,966 | 100% |
| 2020s | 0 | 237 | 100% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 0 | – | 43 | #3,570 |
| 2023 | 0 | – | 27 | #4,877 |
| 2022 | 0 | – | 47 | #3,368 |
| 2021 | 0 | – | 59 | #2,849 |
| 2020 | 0 | – | 61 | #2,716 |
| 2019 | 0 | – | 68 | #2,563 |
| 2018 | 0 | – | 103 | #1,925 |
| 2017 | 0 | – | 120 | #1,751 |
| 2016 | 0 | – | 143 | #1,560 |
| 2015 | 0 | – | 164 | #1,411 |
| 2014 | 0 | – | 297 | #911 |
| 2013 | 0 | – | 285 | #899 |
| 2012 | 0 | – | 262 | #967 |
| 2011 | 0 | – | 254 | #996 |
| 2010 | 0 | – | 270 | #950 |
| 2009 | 0 | – | 232 | #1,101 |
| 2008 | 0 | – | 279 | #961 |
| 2007 | 0 | – | 285 | #953 |
| 2006 | 0 | – | 247 | #1,036 |
| 2005 | 0 | – | 231 | #1,037 |
| 2004 | 0 | – | 248 | #965 |
| 2003 | 0 | – | 186 | #1,160 |
| 2002 | 0 | – | 219 | #1,002 |
| 2001 | 0 | – | 180 | #1,158 |
| 2000 | 0 | – | 183 | #1,113 |
| 1999 | 0 | – | 168 | #1,160 |
| 1998 | 0 | – | 160 | #1,173 |
| 1997 | 0 | – | 164 | #1,139 |
| 1996 | 0 | – | 157 | #1,155 |
| 1995 | 0 | – | 143 | #1,200 |
| 1994 | 0 | – | 164 | #1,095 |
| 1993 | 5 | #8,746 | 165 | #1,095 |
| 1992 | 0 | – | 189 | #999 |
| 1991 | 8 | #5,966 | 284 | #731 |
| 1990 | 7 | #6,438 | 277 | #747 |
| 1989 | 10 | #4,824 | 239 | #795 |
| 1988 | 0 | – | 173 | #960 |
| 1987 | 0 | – | 115 | #1,235 |
| 1986 | 0 | – | 128 | #1,129 |
| 1985 | 0 | – | 114 | #1,212 |
| 1984 | 0 | – | 117 | #1,157 |
| 1983 | 0 | – | 124 | #1,103 |
| 1982 | 5 | #6,407 | 105 | #1,243 |
| 1981 | 0 | – | 132 | #1,067 |
| 1980 | 0 | – | 162 | #921 |
| 1979 | 0 | – | 88 | #1,395 |
| 1978 | 0 | – | 93 | #1,301 |
| 1977 | 0 | – | 79 | #1,415 |
| 1976 | 0 | – | 71 | #1,465 |
| 1975 | 0 | – | 67 | #1,516 |
| 1974 | 0 | – | 71 | #1,429 |
| 1973 | 0 | – | 45 | #1,857 |
| 1972 | 0 | – | 45 | #1,856 |
| 1971 | 0 | – | 45 | #1,907 |
| 1970 | 0 | – | 37 | #2,162 |
| 1969 | 0 | – | 35 | #2,135 |
| 1968 | 0 | – | 27 | #2,361 |
| 1967 | 0 | – | 29 | #2,214 |
| 1966 | 0 | – | 36 | #1,918 |
| 1965 | 0 | – | 43 | #1,716 |
| 1964 | 0 | – | 37 | #1,949 |
| 1963 | 0 | – | 33 | #2,060 |
| 1962 | 0 | – | 27 | #2,313 |
| 1961 | 0 | – | 17 | #3,063 |
| 1960 | 0 | – | 26 | #2,312 |
| 1959 | 0 | – | 15 | #3,106 |
| 1958 | 0 | – | 19 | #2,666 |
| 1957 | 0 | – | 21 | #2,488 |
| 1956 | 0 | – | 22 | #2,390 |
| 1955 | 0 | – | 17 | #2,732 |
| 1954 | 0 | – | 9 | #3,974 |
| 1953 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1952 | 0 | – | 9 | #3,815 |
| 1951 | 0 | – | 6 | #4,850 |
| 1950 | 0 | – | 10 | #3,432 |
| 1949 | 0 | – | 9 | #3,624 |
| 1948 | 0 | – | 5 | #5,263 |
| 1947 | 0 | – | 6 | #4,774 |
| 1946 | 0 | – | 5 | #4,979 |
| 1945 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1944 | 0 | – | 9 | #3,142 |
| 1943 | 0 | – | 6 | #4,216 |
| 1942 | 0 | – | 11 | #2,825 |
| 1941 | 0 | – | 9 | #3,034 |
| 1940 | 0 | – | 10 | #2,743 |
| 1939 | 0 | – | 5 | #4,268 |
| 1938 | 0 | – | 5 | #4,362 |
| 1937 | 0 | – | 7 | #3,449 |
| 1936 | 0 | – | 8 | #3,115 |
| 1935 | 0 | – | 10 | #2,739 |
| 1934 | 0 | – | 14 | #2,192 |
| 1933 | 0 | – | 16 | #1,970 |
| 1932 | 0 | – | 15 | #2,137 |
| 1931 | 0 | – | 21 | #1,690 |
| 1930 | 0 | – | 19 | #1,879 |
| 1929 | 0 | – | 13 | #2,440 |
| 1928 | 0 | – | 20 | #1,901 |
| 1927 | 0 | – | 25 | #1,675 |
| 1926 | 0 | – | 28 | #1,544 |
| 1925 | 0 | – | 19 | #2,022 |
| 1924 | 0 | – | 43 | #1,206 |
| 1923 | 0 | – | 33 | #1,389 |
| 1922 | 0 | – | 34 | #1,369 |
| 1921 | 0 | – | 31 | #1,479 |
| 1920 | 0 | – | 26 | #1,627 |
| 1919 | 0 | – | 37 | #1,246 |
| 1918 | 0 | – | 37 | #1,234 |
| 1917 | 0 | – | 24 | #1,554 |
| 1916 | 0 | – | 37 | #1,168 |
| 1915 | 0 | – | 29 | #1,319 |
| 1914 | 0 | – | 18 | #1,543 |
| 1913 | 0 | – | 19 | #1,310 |
| 1912 | 0 | – | 14 | #1,481 |
| 1911 | 0 | – | 9 | #1,666 |
| 1910 | 0 | – | 13 | #1,269 |
| 1909 | 0 | – | 8 | #1,613 |
| 1908 | 0 | – | 14 | #1,088 |
| 1907 | 0 | – | 7 | #1,647 |
| 1906 | 0 | – | 15 | #967 |
| 1905 | 0 | – | 9 | #1,304 |
| 1904 | 0 | – | 10 | #1,171 |
| 1903 | 0 | – | 7 | #1,446 |
| 1902 | 0 | – | 9 | #1,223 |
| 1901 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1900 | 0 | – | 8 | #1,440 |
| 1899 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1898 | 0 | – | 5 | #1,713 |
| 1897 | 0 | – | 7 | #1,267 |
| 1896 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1895 | 0 | – | 7 | #1,307 |
| 1894 | 0 | – | 13 | #854 |
| 1893 | 0 | – | 6 | #1,283 |
| 1892 | 0 | – | 8 | #1,088 |
| 1891 | 0 | – | 7 | #1,100 |
| 1890 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1889 | 0 | – | 7 | #1,030 |
| 1888 | 0 | – | 5 | #1,289 |
| 1887 | 0 | – | 13 | #636 |
| 1886 | 0 | – | 6 | #997 |
| 1885 | 0 | – | 7 | #847 |
| 1884 | 0 | – | 5 | #1,032 |
| 1883 | 0 | – | 7 | #755 |
| 1882 | 0 | – | 5 | #914 |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Anabel reached #4,824 in 1989. As a girl name, it reached #636 in 1887. 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 2010s, with a similar number of babies. They can work as sibling or middle names that feel like they belong together.
Names spelled like Anabel
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.