Is Les a boy or girl name?
Les was a boy name in the US. Across 1880–2024, 0.9% of the 3,469 US babies named Les were girls. Fewer than 10 babies were given the name in 2024.
- Boy rank, 2024
- #13,390
- Girl rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Babies named Les since 1900
- 3,469
- Most popular year
- 1961
- 188 babies
Boys and girls named Les, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1900s | 5 | 0 | 0% |
| 1910s | 34 | 0 | 0% |
| 1920s | 71 | 0 | 0% |
| 1930s | 152 | 0 | 0% |
| 1940s | 549 | 0 | 0% |
| 1950s | 790 | 26 | 3.2% |
| 1960s | 1,072 | 6 | 0.6% |
| 1970s | 307 | 0 | 0% |
| 1980s | 183 | 0 | 0% |
| 1990s | 75 | 0 | 0% |
| 2000s | 70 | 0 | 0% |
| 2010s | 95 | 0 | 0% |
| 2020s | 34 | 0 | 0% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 5 | #13,390 | 0 | – |
| 2023 | 6 | #11,673 | 0 | – |
| 2022 | 8 | #9,503 | 0 | – |
| 2021 | 5 | #13,300 | 0 | – |
| 2020 | 10 | #7,856 | 0 | – |
| 2019 | 12 | #7,014 | 0 | – |
| 2018 | 8 | #9,311 | 0 | – |
| 2017 | 12 | #6,941 | 0 | – |
| 2016 | 14 | #6,216 | 0 | – |
| 2015 | 10 | #7,826 | 0 | – |
| 2014 | 8 | #9,289 | 0 | – |
| 2013 | 7 | #10,301 | 0 | – |
| 2012 | 5 | #13,428 | 0 | – |
| 2011 | 11 | #7,305 | 0 | – |
| 2010 | 8 | #9,331 | 0 | – |
| 2009 | 10 | #8,063 | 0 | – |
| 2008 | 9 | #8,730 | 0 | – |
| 2007 | 7 | #10,447 | 0 | – |
| 2006 | 7 | #10,213 | 0 | – |
| 2005 | 5 | #12,577 | 0 | – |
| 2004 | 7 | #9,547 | 0 | – |
| 2003 | 7 | #9,249 | 0 | – |
| 2002 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2001 | 5 | #11,626 | 0 | – |
| 2000 | 13 | #5,472 | 0 | – |
| 1999 | 6 | #9,425 | 0 | – |
| 1998 | 9 | #6,626 | 0 | – |
| 1997 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1996 | 5 | #9,925 | 0 | – |
| 1995 | 11 | #5,369 | 0 | – |
| 1994 | 6 | #8,379 | 0 | – |
| 1993 | 6 | #8,259 | 0 | – |
| 1992 | 10 | #5,491 | 0 | – |
| 1991 | 10 | #5,333 | 0 | – |
| 1990 | 12 | #4,565 | 0 | – |
| 1989 | 17 | #3,392 | 0 | – |
| 1988 | 27 | #2,284 | 0 | – |
| 1987 | 8 | #5,252 | 0 | – |
| 1986 | 14 | #3,365 | 0 | – |
| 1985 | 22 | #2,400 | 0 | – |
| 1984 | 15 | #3,042 | 0 | – |
| 1983 | 19 | #2,541 | 0 | – |
| 1982 | 19 | #2,566 | 0 | – |
| 1981 | 21 | #2,384 | 0 | – |
| 1980 | 21 | #2,413 | 0 | – |
| 1979 | 18 | #2,643 | 0 | – |
| 1978 | 20 | #2,337 | 0 | – |
| 1977 | 32 | #1,693 | 0 | – |
| 1976 | 30 | #1,728 | 0 | – |
| 1975 | 25 | #1,921 | 0 | – |
| 1974 | 26 | #1,816 | 0 | – |
| 1973 | 29 | #1,632 | 0 | – |
| 1972 | 25 | #1,802 | 0 | – |
| 1971 | 48 | #1,192 | 0 | – |
| 1970 | 54 | #1,125 | 0 | – |
| 1969 | 57 | #1,022 | 0 | – |
| 1968 | 63 | #915 | 0 | – |
| 1967 | 71 | #853 | 0 | – |
| 1966 | 83 | #802 | 0 | – |
| 1965 | 92 | #768 | 0 | – |
| 1964 | 105 | #750 | 0 | – |
| 1963 | 121 | #707 | 0 | – |
| 1962 | 126 | #690 | 0 | – |
| 1961 | 182 | #587 | 6 | #6,245 |
| 1960 | 172 | #600 | 0 | – |
| 1959 | 160 | #612 | 5 | #6,791 |
| 1958 | 162 | #604 | 11 | #3,838 |
| 1957 | 126 | #680 | 0 | – |
| 1956 | 112 | #702 | 0 | – |
| 1955 | 59 | #980 | 5 | #6,323 |
| 1954 | 41 | #1,180 | 5 | #6,216 |
| 1953 | 39 | #1,205 | 0 | – |
| 1952 | 30 | #1,393 | 0 | – |
| 1951 | 33 | #1,288 | 0 | – |
| 1950 | 28 | #1,382 | 0 | – |
| 1949 | 49 | #1,002 | 0 | – |
| 1948 | 70 | #817 | 0 | – |
| 1947 | 91 | #722 | 0 | – |
| 1946 | 74 | #775 | 0 | – |
| 1945 | 50 | #907 | 0 | – |
| 1944 | 54 | #864 | 0 | – |
| 1943 | 61 | #852 | 0 | – |
| 1942 | 33 | #1,225 | 0 | – |
| 1941 | 30 | #1,223 | 0 | – |
| 1940 | 37 | #1,085 | 0 | – |
| 1939 | 17 | #1,685 | 0 | – |
| 1938 | 18 | #1,656 | 0 | – |
| 1937 | 26 | #1,330 | 0 | – |
| 1936 | 18 | #1,619 | 0 | – |
| 1935 | 16 | #1,799 | 0 | – |
| 1934 | 16 | #1,821 | 0 | – |
| 1933 | 11 | #2,305 | 0 | – |
| 1932 | 11 | #2,401 | 0 | – |
| 1931 | 8 | #2,993 | 0 | – |
| 1930 | 11 | #2,542 | 0 | – |
| 1929 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1928 | 12 | #2,470 | 0 | – |
| 1927 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1926 | 9 | #3,033 | 0 | – |
| 1925 | 7 | #3,592 | 0 | – |
| 1924 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1923 | 8 | #3,334 | 0 | – |
| 1922 | 11 | #2,730 | 0 | – |
| 1921 | 15 | #2,219 | 0 | – |
| 1920 | 9 | #3,094 | 0 | – |
| 1919 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1918 | 7 | #3,562 | 0 | – |
| 1917 | 8 | #3,083 | 0 | – |
| 1916 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1915 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1914 | 8 | #2,557 | 0 | – |
| 1913 | 11 | #1,754 | 0 | – |
| 1912 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1911 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1910 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1909 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1908 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1907 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1906 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1905 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1904 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1903 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1902 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1901 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1900 | 5 | #1,418 | 0 | – |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Les reached #587 in 1961. As a girl name, it reached #3,838 in 1958. 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 1960s, with a similar number of babies. They can work as sibling or middle names that feel like they belong together.
Names spelled like Les
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.