Is Rudolph a boy or girl name?
Rudolph is a boy name in the US. In 2024, 0 girls and 34 boys were named Rudolph, so 0% were girls. Across 1880–2024, 0.4% of the 53,610 US babies named Rudolph were girls.
- Boy rank, 2024
- #3,436
- Girl rank, 2024
- Not ranked
- Babies named Rudolph since 1880
- 53,610
- Most popular year
- 1927
- 1,700 babies
Boys and girls named Rudolph, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 652 | 0 | 0% |
| 1890s | 998 | 0 | 0% |
| 1900s | 1,339 | 0 | 0% |
| 1910s | 6,857 | 29 | 0.4% |
| 1920s | 12,561 | 77 | 0.6% |
| 1930s | 8,199 | 47 | 0.6% |
| 1940s | 6,553 | 21 | 0.3% |
| 1950s | 6,650 | 12 | 0.2% |
| 1960s | 3,535 | 0 | 0% |
| 1970s | 2,186 | 11 | 0.5% |
| 1980s | 1,703 | 0 | 0% |
| 1990s | 1,054 | 0 | 0% |
| 2000s | 589 | 0 | 0% |
| 2010s | 392 | 0 | 0% |
| 2020s | 145 | 0 | 0% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 34 | #3,436 | 0 | – |
| 2023 | 22 | #4,713 | 0 | – |
| 2022 | 30 | #3,754 | 0 | – |
| 2021 | 31 | #3,633 | 0 | – |
| 2020 | 28 | #3,790 | 0 | – |
| 2019 | 41 | #2,984 | 0 | – |
| 2018 | 34 | #3,357 | 0 | – |
| 2017 | 40 | #2,996 | 0 | – |
| 2016 | 34 | #3,350 | 0 | – |
| 2015 | 41 | #2,907 | 0 | – |
| 2014 | 47 | #2,614 | 0 | – |
| 2013 | 36 | #3,111 | 0 | – |
| 2012 | 43 | #2,806 | 0 | – |
| 2011 | 44 | #2,731 | 0 | – |
| 2010 | 32 | #3,432 | 0 | – |
| 2009 | 35 | #3,262 | 0 | – |
| 2008 | 54 | #2,401 | 0 | – |
| 2007 | 45 | #2,711 | 0 | – |
| 2006 | 50 | #2,469 | 0 | – |
| 2005 | 58 | #2,125 | 0 | – |
| 2004 | 59 | #2,047 | 0 | – |
| 2003 | 65 | #1,838 | 0 | – |
| 2002 | 69 | #1,706 | 0 | – |
| 2001 | 82 | #1,499 | 0 | – |
| 2000 | 72 | #1,638 | 0 | – |
| 1999 | 63 | #1,685 | 0 | – |
| 1998 | 92 | #1,300 | 0 | – |
| 1997 | 76 | #1,437 | 0 | – |
| 1996 | 109 | #1,105 | 0 | – |
| 1995 | 105 | #1,120 | 0 | – |
| 1994 | 105 | #1,103 | 0 | – |
| 1993 | 108 | #1,077 | 0 | – |
| 1992 | 119 | #994 | 0 | – |
| 1991 | 131 | #928 | 0 | – |
| 1990 | 146 | #848 | 0 | – |
| 1989 | 183 | #732 | 0 | – |
| 1988 | 170 | #723 | 0 | – |
| 1987 | 156 | #731 | 0 | – |
| 1986 | 139 | #770 | 0 | – |
| 1985 | 157 | #705 | 0 | – |
| 1984 | 165 | #676 | 0 | – |
| 1983 | 175 | #647 | 0 | – |
| 1982 | 192 | #626 | 0 | – |
| 1981 | 170 | #660 | 0 | – |
| 1980 | 196 | #625 | 0 | – |
| 1979 | 190 | #623 | 0 | – |
| 1978 | 182 | #621 | 0 | – |
| 1977 | 181 | #624 | 0 | – |
| 1976 | 198 | #580 | 0 | – |
| 1975 | 188 | #588 | 0 | – |
| 1974 | 217 | #546 | 6 | #8,479 |
| 1973 | 215 | #536 | 5 | #9,453 |
| 1972 | 231 | #518 | 0 | – |
| 1971 | 275 | #485 | 0 | – |
| 1970 | 309 | #462 | 0 | – |
| 1969 | 251 | #485 | 0 | – |
| 1968 | 270 | #464 | 0 | – |
| 1967 | 276 | #452 | 0 | – |
| 1966 | 352 | #403 | 0 | – |
| 1965 | 328 | #426 | 0 | – |
| 1964 | 378 | #415 | 0 | – |
| 1963 | 412 | #395 | 0 | – |
| 1962 | 412 | #400 | 0 | – |
| 1961 | 414 | #393 | 0 | – |
| 1960 | 442 | #376 | 0 | – |
| 1959 | 458 | #366 | 0 | – |
| 1958 | 486 | #347 | 0 | – |
| 1957 | 572 | #319 | 0 | – |
| 1956 | 719 | #274 | 0 | – |
| 1955 | 653 | #281 | 7 | #5,120 |
| 1954 | 653 | #276 | 0 | – |
| 1953 | 745 | #253 | 0 | – |
| 1952 | 777 | #240 | 0 | – |
| 1951 | 831 | #228 | 5 | #6,082 |
| 1950 | 756 | #239 | 0 | – |
| 1949 | 822 | #223 | 0 | – |
| 1948 | 716 | #241 | 0 | – |
| 1947 | 696 | #249 | 0 | – |
| 1946 | 628 | #246 | 6 | #4,874 |
| 1945 | 574 | #235 | 5 | #5,131 |
| 1944 | 573 | #235 | 5 | #5,131 |
| 1943 | 664 | #221 | 0 | – |
| 1942 | 658 | #222 | 0 | – |
| 1941 | 600 | #220 | 0 | – |
| 1940 | 622 | #206 | 5 | #4,920 |
| 1939 | 587 | #208 | 0 | – |
| 1938 | 684 | #192 | 0 | – |
| 1937 | 630 | #197 | 0 | – |
| 1936 | 647 | #192 | 0 | – |
| 1935 | 745 | #181 | 0 | – |
| 1934 | 779 | #175 | 8 | #3,411 |
| 1933 | 847 | #167 | 6 | #4,145 |
| 1932 | 960 | #158 | 5 | #4,988 |
| 1931 | 1,101 | #146 | 13 | #2,409 |
| 1930 | 1,219 | #140 | 15 | #2,288 |
| 1929 | 1,220 | #140 | 10 | #3,105 |
| 1928 | 1,308 | #134 | 17 | #2,175 |
| 1927 | 1,690 | #110 | 10 | #3,250 |
| 1926 | 1,636 | #111 | 7 | #4,242 |
| 1925 | 1,240 | #136 | 12 | #2,917 |
| 1924 | 1,229 | #138 | 9 | #3,621 |
| 1923 | 1,303 | #128 | 0 | – |
| 1922 | 1,145 | #138 | 0 | – |
| 1921 | 960 | #157 | 7 | #4,383 |
| 1920 | 830 | #169 | 5 | #5,638 |
| 1919 | 802 | #170 | 0 | – |
| 1918 | 962 | #149 | 10 | #3,198 |
| 1917 | 946 | #141 | 6 | #4,507 |
| 1916 | 988 | #137 | 0 | – |
| 1915 | 974 | #135 | 6 | #4,184 |
| 1914 | 732 | #139 | 7 | #3,129 |
| 1913 | 565 | #139 | 0 | – |
| 1912 | 453 | #141 | 0 | – |
| 1911 | 217 | #155 | 0 | – |
| 1910 | 218 | #147 | 0 | – |
| 1909 | 173 | #148 | 0 | – |
| 1908 | 173 | #140 | 0 | – |
| 1907 | 135 | #162 | 0 | – |
| 1906 | 125 | #158 | 0 | – |
| 1905 | 132 | #156 | 0 | – |
| 1904 | 128 | #150 | 0 | – |
| 1903 | 120 | #153 | 0 | – |
| 1902 | 119 | #151 | 0 | – |
| 1901 | 87 | #172 | 0 | – |
| 1900 | 147 | #145 | 0 | – |
| 1899 | 100 | #153 | 0 | – |
| 1898 | 115 | #147 | 0 | – |
| 1897 | 109 | #147 | 0 | – |
| 1896 | 108 | #154 | 0 | – |
| 1895 | 106 | #147 | 0 | – |
| 1894 | 104 | #148 | 0 | – |
| 1893 | 101 | #149 | 0 | – |
| 1892 | 95 | #169 | 0 | – |
| 1891 | 68 | #187 | 0 | – |
| 1890 | 92 | #154 | 0 | – |
| 1889 | 83 | #165 | 0 | – |
| 1888 | 54 | #238 | 0 | – |
| 1887 | 71 | #178 | 0 | – |
| 1886 | 68 | #198 | 0 | – |
| 1885 | 70 | #189 | 0 | – |
| 1884 | 77 | #182 | 0 | – |
| 1883 | 61 | #196 | 0 | – |
| 1882 | 52 | #230 | 0 | – |
| 1881 | 62 | #186 | 0 | – |
| 1880 | 54 | #218 | 0 | – |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Rudolph reached #110 in 1927. As a girl name, it reached #2,175 in 1928. 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 1920s, with a similar number of babies. They can work as sibling or middle names that feel like they belong together.
Names spelled like Rudolph
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.