Is Oakley a boy or girl name?
Oakley is used for both, more often for girls in the US. In 2024, 1,894 girls and 785 boys were named Oakley, so 70.7% were girls. Across 1880–2024, 55.7% of the 24,104 US babies named Oakley were girls.
- Boy rank, 2024
- #410
- Girl rank, 2024
- #157
- Babies named Oakley since 1884
- 24,104
- Most popular year
- 2023
- 2,685 babies
Boys and girls named Oakley, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 22 | 0 | 0% |
| 1890s | 67 | 0 | 0% |
| 1900s | 74 | 0 | 0% |
| 1910s | 337 | 27 | 7.4% |
| 1920s | 394 | 35 | 8.2% |
| 1930s | 244 | 0 | 0% |
| 1940s | 179 | 0 | 0% |
| 1950s | 134 | 0 | 0% |
| 1960s | 83 | 0 | 0% |
| 1970s | 64 | 0 | 0% |
| 1980s | 80 | 11 | 12.1% |
| 1990s | 264 | 124 | 32% |
| 2000s | 684 | 464 | 40.4% |
| 2010s | 4,176 | 4,472 | 51.7% |
| 2020s | 3,883 | 8,286 | 68.1% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 785 | #410 | 1,894 | #157 |
| 2023 | 803 | #396 | 1,882 | #153 |
| 2022 | 810 | #393 | 1,844 | #157 |
| 2021 | 773 | #403 | 1,538 | #193 |
| 2020 | 712 | #420 | 1,128 | #284 |
| 2019 | 690 | #442 | 908 | #349 |
| 2018 | 638 | #459 | 796 | #389 |
| 2017 | 613 | #479 | 658 | #475 |
| 2016 | 479 | #578 | 535 | #581 |
| 2015 | 496 | #567 | 471 | #614 |
| 2014 | 397 | #657 | 365 | #767 |
| 2013 | 291 | #770 | 274 | #928 |
| 2012 | 240 | #879 | 190 | #1,267 |
| 2011 | 195 | #997 | 157 | #1,445 |
| 2010 | 137 | #1,276 | 118 | #1,758 |
| 2009 | 139 | #1,270 | 92 | #2,178 |
| 2008 | 91 | #1,688 | 75 | #2,528 |
| 2007 | 72 | #1,969 | 61 | #2,957 |
| 2006 | 65 | #2,054 | 49 | #3,357 |
| 2005 | 65 | #1,961 | 41 | #3,632 |
| 2004 | 56 | #2,123 | 41 | #3,607 |
| 2003 | 59 | #1,978 | 30 | #4,390 |
| 2002 | 39 | #2,536 | 31 | #4,151 |
| 2001 | 50 | #2,107 | 18 | #6,246 |
| 2000 | 48 | #2,120 | 26 | #4,628 |
| 1999 | 37 | #2,443 | 21 | #5,160 |
| 1998 | 39 | #2,300 | 15 | #6,615 |
| 1997 | 33 | #2,484 | 16 | #6,091 |
| 1996 | 29 | #2,657 | 19 | #5,226 |
| 1995 | 28 | #2,669 | 12 | #7,387 |
| 1994 | 20 | #3,427 | 10 | #8,608 |
| 1993 | 26 | #2,758 | 10 | #8,522 |
| 1992 | 21 | #3,180 | 9 | #9,285 |
| 1991 | 13 | #4,407 | 12 | #7,276 |
| 1990 | 18 | #3,420 | 0 | – |
| 1989 | 9 | #5,475 | 0 | – |
| 1988 | 9 | #5,094 | 0 | – |
| 1987 | 9 | #4,848 | 0 | – |
| 1986 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1985 | 6 | #6,299 | 5 | #11,928 |
| 1984 | 6 | #6,106 | 0 | – |
| 1983 | 6 | #6,014 | 6 | #9,853 |
| 1982 | 10 | #4,150 | 0 | – |
| 1981 | 10 | #4,063 | 0 | – |
| 1980 | 15 | #3,060 | 0 | – |
| 1979 | 10 | #3,994 | 0 | – |
| 1978 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1977 | 5 | #6,558 | 0 | – |
| 1976 | 5 | #6,219 | 0 | – |
| 1975 | 9 | #3,855 | 0 | – |
| 1974 | 7 | #4,490 | 0 | – |
| 1973 | 7 | #4,384 | 0 | – |
| 1972 | 11 | #3,099 | 0 | – |
| 1971 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1970 | 10 | #3,212 | 0 | – |
| 1969 | 8 | #3,506 | 0 | – |
| 1968 | 9 | #3,033 | 0 | – |
| 1967 | 7 | #3,457 | 0 | – |
| 1966 | 5 | #4,360 | 0 | – |
| 1965 | 11 | #2,578 | 0 | – |
| 1964 | 9 | #2,996 | 0 | – |
| 1963 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1962 | 15 | #2,165 | 0 | – |
| 1961 | 10 | #2,838 | 0 | – |
| 1960 | 9 | #3,021 | 0 | – |
| 1959 | 11 | #2,624 | 0 | – |
| 1958 | 10 | #2,759 | 0 | – |
| 1957 | 15 | #2,163 | 0 | – |
| 1956 | 11 | #2,599 | 0 | – |
| 1955 | 9 | #2,915 | 0 | – |
| 1954 | 12 | #2,398 | 0 | – |
| 1953 | 11 | #2,494 | 0 | – |
| 1952 | 14 | #2,132 | 0 | – |
| 1951 | 14 | #2,118 | 0 | – |
| 1950 | 27 | #1,416 | 0 | – |
| 1949 | 12 | #2,303 | 0 | – |
| 1948 | 16 | #1,923 | 0 | – |
| 1947 | 16 | #1,970 | 0 | – |
| 1946 | 27 | #1,373 | 0 | – |
| 1945 | 16 | #1,745 | 0 | – |
| 1944 | 17 | #1,719 | 0 | – |
| 1943 | 22 | #1,516 | 0 | – |
| 1942 | 17 | #1,782 | 0 | – |
| 1941 | 15 | #1,875 | 0 | – |
| 1940 | 21 | #1,511 | 0 | – |
| 1939 | 17 | #1,695 | 0 | – |
| 1938 | 19 | #1,601 | 0 | – |
| 1937 | 23 | #1,434 | 0 | – |
| 1936 | 15 | #1,859 | 0 | – |
| 1935 | 34 | #1,141 | 0 | – |
| 1934 | 28 | #1,285 | 0 | – |
| 1933 | 24 | #1,397 | 0 | – |
| 1932 | 27 | #1,350 | 0 | – |
| 1931 | 26 | #1,382 | 0 | – |
| 1930 | 31 | #1,296 | 0 | – |
| 1929 | 27 | #1,401 | 0 | – |
| 1928 | 39 | #1,141 | 5 | #5,244 |
| 1927 | 38 | #1,171 | 0 | – |
| 1926 | 28 | #1,397 | 0 | – |
| 1925 | 43 | #1,064 | 7 | #4,322 |
| 1924 | 38 | #1,182 | 6 | #4,891 |
| 1923 | 47 | #1,040 | 6 | #4,826 |
| 1922 | 36 | #1,214 | 5 | #5,581 |
| 1921 | 46 | #1,041 | 0 | – |
| 1920 | 52 | #964 | 6 | #4,826 |
| 1919 | 52 | #935 | 0 | – |
| 1918 | 41 | #1,074 | 6 | #4,681 |
| 1917 | 50 | #904 | 0 | – |
| 1916 | 40 | #1,023 | 8 | #3,472 |
| 1915 | 43 | #956 | 0 | – |
| 1914 | 27 | #1,121 | 6 | #3,500 |
| 1913 | 36 | #797 | 7 | #2,741 |
| 1912 | 23 | #961 | 0 | – |
| 1911 | 12 | #1,027 | 0 | – |
| 1910 | 13 | #916 | 0 | – |
| 1909 | 9 | #1,061 | 0 | – |
| 1908 | 7 | #1,188 | 0 | – |
| 1907 | 6 | #1,295 | 0 | – |
| 1906 | 5 | #1,372 | 0 | – |
| 1905 | 9 | #898 | 0 | – |
| 1904 | 7 | #1,035 | 0 | – |
| 1903 | 5 | #1,254 | 0 | – |
| 1902 | 12 | #676 | 0 | – |
| 1901 | 8 | #833 | 0 | – |
| 1900 | 6 | #1,271 | 0 | – |
| 1899 | 8 | #839 | 0 | – |
| 1898 | 16 | #534 | 0 | – |
| 1897 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1896 | 11 | #709 | 0 | – |
| 1895 | 7 | #951 | 0 | – |
| 1894 | 7 | #927 | 0 | – |
| 1893 | 5 | #1,142 | 0 | – |
| 1892 | 7 | #927 | 0 | – |
| 1891 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1890 | 6 | #965 | 0 | – |
| 1889 | 8 | #770 | 0 | – |
| 1888 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1887 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1886 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1885 | 5 | #1,050 | 0 | – |
| 1884 | 9 | #689 | 0 | – |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Oakley reached #393 in 2022. As a girl name, it reached #153 in 2023. 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 Oakley
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.