Is Oswald a boy or girl name?
Oswald is a boy name in the US. In 2024, 0 girls and 70 boys were named Oswald, so 0% were girls. Across 1880–2024, 0% of the 4,339 US babies named Oswald were girls.
- Boy rank, 2024
- #2,121
- Girl rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Babies named Oswald since 1880
- 4,339
- Most popular year
- 1916
- 107 babies
Boys and girls named Oswald, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 101 | 0 | 0% |
| 1890s | 115 | 0 | 0% |
| 1900s | 141 | 0 | 0% |
| 1910s | 750 | 0 | 0% |
| 1920s | 763 | 0 | 0% |
| 1930s | 375 | 0 | 0% |
| 1940s | 243 | 0 | 0% |
| 1950s | 276 | 0 | 0% |
| 1960s | 218 | 0 | 0% |
| 1970s | 211 | 0 | 0% |
| 1980s | 210 | 0 | 0% |
| 1990s | 183 | 0 | 0% |
| 2000s | 189 | 0 | 0% |
| 2010s | 281 | 0 | 0% |
| 2020s | 283 | 0 | 0% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 70 | #2,121 | 0 | – |
| 2023 | 65 | #2,211 | 0 | – |
| 2022 | 55 | #2,507 | 0 | – |
| 2021 | 54 | #2,482 | 0 | – |
| 2020 | 39 | #3,014 | 0 | – |
| 2019 | 41 | #2,976 | 0 | – |
| 2018 | 41 | #2,926 | 0 | – |
| 2017 | 38 | #3,106 | 0 | – |
| 2016 | 36 | #3,205 | 0 | – |
| 2015 | 26 | #4,048 | 0 | – |
| 2014 | 27 | #3,865 | 0 | – |
| 2013 | 19 | #4,921 | 0 | – |
| 2012 | 14 | #6,218 | 0 | – |
| 2011 | 18 | #5,138 | 0 | – |
| 2010 | 21 | #4,638 | 0 | – |
| 2009 | 19 | #5,055 | 0 | – |
| 2008 | 14 | #6,316 | 0 | – |
| 2007 | 20 | #4,754 | 0 | – |
| 2006 | 18 | #5,010 | 0 | – |
| 2005 | 17 | #4,971 | 0 | – |
| 2004 | 25 | #3,717 | 0 | – |
| 2003 | 23 | #3,816 | 0 | – |
| 2002 | 9 | #7,470 | 0 | – |
| 2001 | 24 | #3,592 | 0 | – |
| 2000 | 20 | #4,028 | 0 | – |
| 1999 | 18 | #4,111 | 0 | – |
| 1998 | 16 | #4,356 | 0 | – |
| 1997 | 18 | #3,843 | 0 | – |
| 1996 | 10 | #5,859 | 0 | – |
| 1995 | 16 | #3,999 | 0 | – |
| 1994 | 17 | #3,859 | 0 | – |
| 1993 | 23 | #3,006 | 0 | – |
| 1992 | 19 | #3,421 | 0 | – |
| 1991 | 22 | #2,964 | 0 | – |
| 1990 | 24 | #2,753 | 0 | – |
| 1989 | 22 | #2,863 | 0 | – |
| 1988 | 18 | #3,044 | 0 | – |
| 1987 | 15 | #3,298 | 0 | – |
| 1986 | 20 | #2,664 | 0 | – |
| 1985 | 21 | #2,482 | 0 | – |
| 1984 | 31 | #1,827 | 0 | – |
| 1983 | 25 | #2,129 | 0 | – |
| 1982 | 22 | #2,320 | 0 | – |
| 1981 | 17 | #2,751 | 0 | – |
| 1980 | 19 | #2,593 | 0 | – |
| 1979 | 14 | #3,120 | 0 | – |
| 1978 | 22 | #2,184 | 0 | – |
| 1977 | 17 | #2,629 | 0 | – |
| 1976 | 16 | #2,674 | 0 | – |
| 1975 | 16 | #2,609 | 0 | – |
| 1974 | 32 | #1,574 | 0 | – |
| 1973 | 19 | #2,190 | 0 | – |
| 1972 | 20 | #2,059 | 0 | – |
| 1971 | 28 | #1,700 | 0 | – |
| 1970 | 27 | #1,690 | 0 | – |
| 1969 | 22 | #1,793 | 0 | – |
| 1968 | 19 | #1,881 | 0 | – |
| 1967 | 11 | #2,577 | 0 | – |
| 1966 | 23 | #1,642 | 0 | – |
| 1965 | 19 | #1,842 | 0 | – |
| 1964 | 18 | #1,958 | 0 | – |
| 1963 | 24 | #1,649 | 0 | – |
| 1962 | 28 | #1,508 | 0 | – |
| 1961 | 28 | #1,540 | 0 | – |
| 1960 | 26 | #1,611 | 0 | – |
| 1959 | 24 | #1,657 | 0 | – |
| 1958 | 30 | #1,442 | 0 | – |
| 1957 | 18 | #1,934 | 0 | – |
| 1956 | 28 | #1,503 | 0 | – |
| 1955 | 20 | #1,772 | 0 | – |
| 1954 | 40 | #1,195 | 0 | – |
| 1953 | 37 | #1,241 | 0 | – |
| 1952 | 25 | #1,539 | 0 | – |
| 1951 | 29 | #1,394 | 0 | – |
| 1950 | 25 | #1,491 | 0 | – |
| 1949 | 26 | #1,455 | 0 | – |
| 1948 | 31 | #1,314 | 0 | – |
| 1947 | 25 | #1,511 | 0 | – |
| 1946 | 18 | #1,742 | 0 | – |
| 1945 | 38 | #1,052 | 0 | – |
| 1944 | 21 | #1,514 | 0 | – |
| 1943 | 17 | #1,813 | 0 | – |
| 1942 | 25 | #1,409 | 0 | – |
| 1941 | 24 | #1,402 | 0 | – |
| 1940 | 18 | #1,671 | 0 | – |
| 1939 | 14 | #1,943 | 0 | – |
| 1938 | 24 | #1,392 | 0 | – |
| 1937 | 27 | #1,306 | 0 | – |
| 1936 | 26 | #1,316 | 0 | – |
| 1935 | 33 | #1,158 | 0 | – |
| 1934 | 29 | #1,263 | 0 | – |
| 1933 | 46 | #932 | 0 | – |
| 1932 | 53 | #883 | 0 | – |
| 1931 | 52 | #898 | 0 | – |
| 1930 | 71 | #763 | 0 | – |
| 1929 | 51 | #950 | 0 | – |
| 1928 | 62 | #841 | 0 | – |
| 1927 | 67 | #819 | 0 | – |
| 1926 | 70 | #782 | 0 | – |
| 1925 | 84 | #708 | 0 | – |
| 1924 | 100 | #641 | 0 | – |
| 1923 | 83 | #716 | 0 | – |
| 1922 | 80 | #739 | 0 | – |
| 1921 | 86 | #705 | 0 | – |
| 1920 | 80 | #729 | 0 | – |
| 1919 | 90 | #646 | 0 | – |
| 1918 | 105 | #599 | 0 | – |
| 1917 | 94 | #615 | 0 | – |
| 1916 | 107 | #553 | 0 | – |
| 1915 | 92 | #600 | 0 | – |
| 1914 | 86 | #534 | 0 | – |
| 1913 | 64 | #544 | 0 | – |
| 1912 | 54 | #549 | 0 | – |
| 1911 | 29 | #569 | 0 | – |
| 1910 | 29 | #530 | 0 | – |
| 1909 | 25 | #528 | 0 | – |
| 1908 | 16 | #678 | 0 | – |
| 1907 | 19 | #581 | 0 | – |
| 1906 | 15 | #635 | 0 | – |
| 1905 | 13 | #692 | 0 | – |
| 1904 | 9 | #860 | 0 | – |
| 1903 | 9 | #829 | 0 | – |
| 1902 | 11 | #724 | 0 | – |
| 1901 | 15 | #525 | 0 | – |
| 1900 | 9 | #952 | 0 | – |
| 1899 | 11 | #649 | 0 | – |
| 1898 | 10 | #732 | 0 | – |
| 1897 | 18 | #468 | 0 | – |
| 1896 | 13 | #626 | 0 | – |
| 1895 | 13 | #598 | 0 | – |
| 1894 | 13 | #588 | 0 | – |
| 1893 | 9 | #748 | 0 | – |
| 1892 | 11 | #674 | 0 | – |
| 1891 | 5 | #1,089 | 0 | – |
| 1890 | 12 | #594 | 0 | – |
| 1889 | 12 | #575 | 0 | – |
| 1888 | 11 | #637 | 0 | – |
| 1887 | 8 | #729 | 0 | – |
| 1886 | 16 | #465 | 0 | – |
| 1885 | 5 | #1,061 | 0 | – |
| 1884 | 13 | #538 | 0 | – |
| 1883 | 10 | #630 | 0 | – |
| 1882 | 11 | #599 | 0 | – |
| 1881 | 6 | #846 | 0 | – |
| 1880 | 9 | #674 | 0 | – |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Oswald reached #465 in 1886. It has never been ranked as a girl name. 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 1910s, with a similar number of babies. They can work as sibling or middle names that feel like they belong together.
Names spelled like Oswald
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.