Is Beverley a boy or girl name?
Beverley was a girl name in the US. Across 1880–2024, 97% of the 13,457 US babies named Beverley were girls. Fewer than 10 babies were given the name in 2024.
- Boy rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Girl rank, 2024
- #12,333
- Babies named Beverley since 1912
- 13,457
- Most popular year
- 1938
- 414 babies
Boys and girls named Beverley, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1910s | 84 | 243 | 74.3% |
| 1920s | 134 | 1,863 | 93.3% |
| 1930s | 97 | 3,511 | 97.3% |
| 1940s | 65 | 3,425 | 98.1% |
| 1950s | 11 | 2,390 | 99.5% |
| 1960s | 16 | 996 | 98.4% |
| 1970s | 0 | 274 | 100% |
| 1980s | 0 | 108 | 100% |
| 1990s | 0 | 92 | 100% |
| 2000s | 0 | 42 | 100% |
| 2010s | 0 | 59 | 100% |
| 2020s | 0 | 47 | 100% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 0 | – | 7 | #12,333 |
| 2023 | 0 | – | 13 | #8,121 |
| 2022 | 0 | – | 12 | #8,617 |
| 2021 | 0 | – | 8 | #11,285 |
| 2020 | 0 | – | 7 | #12,350 |
| 2019 | 0 | – | 9 | #10,609 |
| 2018 | 0 | – | 10 | #9,937 |
| 2017 | 0 | – | 8 | #11,821 |
| 2016 | 0 | – | 7 | #13,110 |
| 2015 | 0 | – | 5 | #16,870 |
| 2014 | 0 | – | 5 | #16,973 |
| 2013 | 0 | – | 10 | #10,376 |
| 2012 | 0 | – | 5 | #17,308 |
| 2011 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2010 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2009 | 0 | – | 5 | #17,730 |
| 2008 | 0 | – | 5 | #17,958 |
| 2007 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2006 | 0 | – | 8 | #12,597 |
| 2005 | 0 | – | 6 | #14,772 |
| 2004 | 0 | – | 5 | #16,482 |
| 2003 | 0 | – | 8 | #11,473 |
| 2002 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2001 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2000 | 0 | – | 5 | #15,375 |
| 1999 | 0 | – | 5 | #14,712 |
| 1998 | 0 | – | 6 | #12,660 |
| 1997 | 0 | – | 6 | #12,278 |
| 1996 | 0 | – | 7 | #10,716 |
| 1995 | 0 | – | 7 | #10,653 |
| 1994 | 0 | – | 7 | #10,706 |
| 1993 | 0 | – | 7 | #10,737 |
| 1992 | 0 | – | 11 | #7,578 |
| 1991 | 0 | – | 16 | #5,694 |
| 1990 | 0 | – | 20 | #4,714 |
| 1989 | 0 | – | 10 | #7,499 |
| 1988 | 0 | – | 9 | #7,763 |
| 1987 | 0 | – | 8 | #8,077 |
| 1986 | 0 | – | 10 | #6,655 |
| 1985 | 0 | – | 12 | #5,710 |
| 1984 | 0 | – | 12 | #5,574 |
| 1983 | 0 | – | 10 | #6,265 |
| 1982 | 0 | – | 10 | #6,408 |
| 1981 | 0 | – | 14 | #4,988 |
| 1980 | 0 | – | 13 | #5,268 |
| 1979 | 0 | – | 13 | #5,127 |
| 1978 | 0 | – | 16 | #4,272 |
| 1977 | 0 | – | 21 | #3,494 |
| 1976 | 0 | – | 24 | #3,011 |
| 1975 | 0 | – | 21 | #3,279 |
| 1974 | 0 | – | 26 | #2,762 |
| 1973 | 0 | – | 32 | #2,357 |
| 1972 | 0 | – | 42 | #1,949 |
| 1971 | 0 | – | 40 | #2,069 |
| 1970 | 0 | – | 39 | #2,083 |
| 1969 | 0 | – | 59 | #1,546 |
| 1968 | 0 | – | 64 | #1,406 |
| 1967 | 0 | – | 65 | #1,364 |
| 1966 | 0 | – | 68 | #1,314 |
| 1965 | 0 | – | 74 | #1,253 |
| 1964 | 0 | – | 121 | #956 |
| 1963 | 6 | #3,684 | 104 | #1,051 |
| 1962 | 5 | #4,095 | 131 | #925 |
| 1961 | 5 | #4,123 | 139 | #916 |
| 1960 | 0 | – | 171 | #782 |
| 1959 | 0 | – | 167 | #789 |
| 1958 | 0 | – | 205 | #689 |
| 1957 | 0 | – | 237 | #635 |
| 1956 | 0 | – | 231 | #630 |
| 1955 | 0 | – | 237 | #599 |
| 1954 | 0 | – | 253 | #557 |
| 1953 | 0 | – | 249 | #554 |
| 1952 | 6 | #3,402 | 251 | #539 |
| 1951 | 5 | #3,764 | 277 | #492 |
| 1950 | 0 | – | 283 | #482 |
| 1949 | 7 | #3,050 | 265 | #498 |
| 1948 | 5 | #3,727 | 313 | #452 |
| 1947 | 11 | #2,378 | 373 | #421 |
| 1946 | 7 | #2,943 | 352 | #412 |
| 1945 | 0 | – | 286 | #420 |
| 1944 | 0 | – | 367 | #364 |
| 1943 | 13 | #2,082 | 394 | #364 |
| 1942 | 8 | #2,733 | 377 | #360 |
| 1941 | 5 | #3,554 | 348 | #355 |
| 1940 | 9 | #2,500 | 350 | #343 |
| 1939 | 8 | #2,625 | 341 | #344 |
| 1938 | 7 | #2,890 | 407 | #309 |
| 1937 | 8 | #2,696 | 371 | #323 |
| 1936 | 6 | #3,183 | 370 | #317 |
| 1935 | 11 | #2,263 | 350 | #341 |
| 1934 | 14 | #1,943 | 347 | #341 |
| 1933 | 9 | #2,562 | 310 | #356 |
| 1932 | 9 | #2,659 | 337 | #345 |
| 1931 | 13 | #2,109 | 318 | #361 |
| 1930 | 12 | #2,313 | 360 | #350 |
| 1929 | 10 | #2,614 | 315 | #378 |
| 1928 | 14 | #2,171 | 321 | #378 |
| 1927 | 15 | #2,124 | 272 | #418 |
| 1926 | 14 | #2,206 | 227 | #448 |
| 1925 | 10 | #2,768 | 187 | #517 |
| 1924 | 15 | #2,143 | 147 | #620 |
| 1923 | 14 | #2,241 | 131 | #643 |
| 1922 | 16 | #2,050 | 98 | #735 |
| 1921 | 13 | #2,392 | 93 | #757 |
| 1920 | 13 | #2,348 | 72 | #850 |
| 1919 | 10 | #2,695 | 58 | #927 |
| 1918 | 11 | #2,561 | 66 | #879 |
| 1917 | 14 | #2,103 | 48 | #1,015 |
| 1916 | 11 | #2,399 | 28 | #1,383 |
| 1915 | 13 | #2,081 | 25 | #1,445 |
| 1914 | 13 | #1,789 | 6 | #3,241 |
| 1913 | 5 | #2,865 | 6 | #2,867 |
| 1912 | 7 | #2,070 | 6 | #2,671 |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Beverley reached #1,789 in 1914. As a girl name, it reached #309 in 1938. 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 1930s, with a similar number of babies. They can work as sibling or middle names that feel like they belong together.
Names spelled like Beverley
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.