Is Rayford a boy or girl name?
Rayford was a boy name in the US. Across 1880–2024, 0% of the 5,511 US babies named Rayford were girls. Fewer than 10 babies were given the name in 2024.
- Boy rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Girl rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Babies named Rayford since 1896
- 5,511
- Most popular year
- 1937
- 124 babies
Boys and girls named Rayford, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1890s | 8 | 0 | 0% |
| 1900s | 48 | 0 | 0% |
| 1910s | 360 | 0 | 0% |
| 1920s | 841 | 0 | 0% |
| 1930s | 923 | 0 | 0% |
| 1940s | 948 | 0 | 0% |
| 1950s | 892 | 0 | 0% |
| 1960s | 641 | 0 | 0% |
| 1970s | 348 | 0 | 0% |
| 1980s | 248 | 0 | 0% |
| 1990s | 131 | 0 | 0% |
| 2000s | 76 | 0 | 0% |
| 2010s | 35 | 0 | 0% |
| 2020s | 12 | 0 | 0% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2023 | 6 | #11,929 | 0 | – |
| 2022 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2021 | 6 | #11,810 | 0 | – |
| 2020 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2019 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2018 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2017 | 6 | #11,881 | 0 | – |
| 2016 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2015 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2014 | 7 | #10,475 | 0 | – |
| 2013 | 6 | #11,834 | 0 | – |
| 2012 | 5 | #13,762 | 0 | – |
| 2011 | 5 | #13,870 | 0 | – |
| 2010 | 6 | #11,862 | 0 | – |
| 2009 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2008 | 10 | #8,154 | 0 | – |
| 2007 | 6 | #12,035 | 0 | – |
| 2006 | 7 | #10,403 | 0 | – |
| 2005 | 11 | #7,005 | 0 | – |
| 2004 | 10 | #7,396 | 0 | – |
| 2003 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 2002 | 12 | #5,994 | 0 | – |
| 2001 | 14 | #5,341 | 0 | – |
| 2000 | 6 | #10,051 | 0 | – |
| 1999 | 11 | #5,958 | 0 | – |
| 1998 | 10 | #6,192 | 0 | – |
| 1997 | 10 | #5,997 | 0 | – |
| 1996 | 12 | #5,116 | 0 | – |
| 1995 | 7 | #7,611 | 0 | – |
| 1994 | 11 | #5,379 | 0 | – |
| 1993 | 8 | #6,687 | 0 | – |
| 1992 | 17 | #3,710 | 0 | – |
| 1991 | 23 | #2,896 | 0 | – |
| 1990 | 22 | #2,940 | 0 | – |
| 1989 | 20 | #3,066 | 0 | – |
| 1988 | 21 | #2,749 | 0 | – |
| 1987 | 22 | #2,536 | 0 | – |
| 1986 | 26 | #2,212 | 0 | – |
| 1985 | 18 | #2,800 | 0 | – |
| 1984 | 31 | #1,832 | 0 | – |
| 1983 | 22 | #2,323 | 0 | – |
| 1982 | 34 | #1,727 | 0 | – |
| 1981 | 30 | #1,891 | 0 | – |
| 1980 | 24 | #2,204 | 0 | – |
| 1979 | 35 | #1,661 | 0 | – |
| 1978 | 29 | #1,824 | 0 | – |
| 1977 | 31 | #1,734 | 0 | – |
| 1976 | 23 | #2,098 | 0 | – |
| 1975 | 36 | #1,497 | 0 | – |
| 1974 | 35 | #1,496 | 0 | – |
| 1973 | 24 | #1,864 | 0 | – |
| 1972 | 43 | #1,283 | 0 | – |
| 1971 | 52 | #1,144 | 0 | – |
| 1970 | 40 | #1,331 | 0 | – |
| 1969 | 50 | #1,105 | 0 | – |
| 1968 | 58 | #966 | 0 | – |
| 1967 | 71 | #855 | 0 | – |
| 1966 | 57 | #965 | 0 | – |
| 1965 | 56 | #993 | 0 | – |
| 1964 | 64 | #954 | 0 | – |
| 1963 | 61 | #969 | 0 | – |
| 1962 | 79 | #852 | 0 | – |
| 1961 | 69 | #923 | 0 | – |
| 1960 | 76 | #873 | 0 | – |
| 1959 | 56 | #1,031 | 0 | – |
| 1958 | 83 | #827 | 0 | – |
| 1957 | 82 | #839 | 0 | – |
| 1956 | 93 | #769 | 0 | – |
| 1955 | 89 | #777 | 0 | – |
| 1954 | 96 | #738 | 0 | – |
| 1953 | 87 | #764 | 0 | – |
| 1952 | 111 | #659 | 0 | – |
| 1951 | 96 | #710 | 0 | – |
| 1950 | 99 | #689 | 0 | – |
| 1949 | 90 | #726 | 0 | – |
| 1948 | 91 | #702 | 0 | – |
| 1947 | 105 | #676 | 0 | – |
| 1946 | 99 | #651 | 0 | – |
| 1945 | 77 | #697 | 0 | – |
| 1944 | 111 | #584 | 0 | – |
| 1943 | 103 | #627 | 0 | – |
| 1942 | 92 | #676 | 0 | – |
| 1941 | 84 | #669 | 0 | – |
| 1940 | 96 | #606 | 0 | – |
| 1939 | 88 | #627 | 0 | – |
| 1938 | 101 | #585 | 0 | – |
| 1937 | 124 | #518 | 0 | – |
| 1936 | 82 | #642 | 0 | – |
| 1935 | 91 | #615 | 0 | – |
| 1934 | 93 | #622 | 0 | – |
| 1933 | 78 | #666 | 0 | – |
| 1932 | 96 | #604 | 0 | – |
| 1931 | 80 | #671 | 0 | – |
| 1930 | 90 | #652 | 0 | – |
| 1929 | 90 | #653 | 0 | – |
| 1928 | 95 | #641 | 0 | – |
| 1927 | 92 | #666 | 0 | – |
| 1926 | 83 | #697 | 0 | – |
| 1925 | 98 | #643 | 0 | – |
| 1924 | 81 | #742 | 0 | – |
| 1923 | 78 | #743 | 0 | – |
| 1922 | 80 | #740 | 0 | – |
| 1921 | 71 | #811 | 0 | – |
| 1920 | 73 | #780 | 0 | – |
| 1919 | 79 | #714 | 0 | – |
| 1918 | 60 | #854 | 0 | – |
| 1917 | 50 | #905 | 0 | – |
| 1916 | 27 | #1,327 | 0 | – |
| 1915 | 44 | #950 | 0 | – |
| 1914 | 29 | #1,071 | 0 | – |
| 1913 | 28 | #947 | 0 | – |
| 1912 | 23 | #962 | 0 | – |
| 1911 | 13 | #969 | 0 | – |
| 1910 | 7 | #1,398 | 0 | – |
| 1909 | 13 | #831 | 0 | – |
| 1908 | 6 | #1,342 | 0 | – |
| 1907 | 8 | #1,072 | 0 | – |
| 1906 | 5 | #1,380 | 0 | – |
| 1905 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1904 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1903 | 5 | #1,271 | 0 | – |
| 1902 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1901 | 5 | #1,177 | 0 | – |
| 1900 | 6 | #1,279 | 0 | – |
| 1899 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1898 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1897 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1896 | 8 | #882 | 0 | – |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Rayford reached #518 in 1937. 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 1930s, with a similar number of babies. They can work as sibling or middle names that feel like they belong together.
Names spelled like Rayford
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.