Is Smith a boy or girl name?
Smith is mostly a boy name in the US. In 2024, 8 girls and 109 boys were named Smith, so 6.8% were girls. Across 1880–2024, 3.3% of the 5,535 US babies named Smith were girls.
- Boy rank, 2024
- #1,584
- Girl rank, 2024
- #11,973
- Babies named Smith since 1880
- 5,535
- Most popular year
- 2016
- 174 babies
Boys and girls named Smith, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 181 | 0 | 0% |
| 1890s | 143 | 0 | 0% |
| 1900s | 168 | 0 | 0% |
| 1910s | 481 | 0 | 0% |
| 1920s | 559 | 0 | 0% |
| 1930s | 376 | 0 | 0% |
| 1940s | 277 | 0 | 0% |
| 1950s | 199 | 0 | 0% |
| 1960s | 164 | 0 | 0% |
| 1970s | 131 | 5 | 3.7% |
| 1980s | 220 | 20 | 8.3% |
| 1990s | 204 | 5 | 2.4% |
| 2000s | 394 | 19 | 4.6% |
| 2010s | 1,258 | 92 | 6.8% |
| 2020s | 599 | 40 | 6.3% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 109 | #1,584 | 8 | #11,973 |
| 2023 | 113 | #1,555 | 6 | #14,927 |
| 2022 | 112 | #1,584 | 13 | #8,464 |
| 2021 | 142 | #1,319 | 6 | #15,010 |
| 2020 | 123 | #1,411 | 7 | #13,288 |
| 2019 | 148 | #1,268 | 10 | #10,383 |
| 2018 | 134 | #1,346 | 16 | #7,369 |
| 2017 | 154 | #1,204 | 14 | #8,242 |
| 2016 | 162 | #1,178 | 12 | #9,350 |
| 2015 | 156 | #1,187 | 11 | #10,063 |
| 2014 | 139 | #1,283 | 6 | #16,252 |
| 2013 | 122 | #1,384 | 8 | #13,009 |
| 2012 | 89 | #1,708 | 9 | #12,093 |
| 2011 | 76 | #1,861 | 6 | #16,509 |
| 2010 | 78 | #1,866 | 0 | – |
| 2009 | 47 | #2,653 | 9 | #12,317 |
| 2008 | 59 | #2,257 | 0 | – |
| 2007 | 57 | #2,297 | 5 | #20,152 |
| 2006 | 41 | #2,821 | 0 | – |
| 2005 | 45 | #2,523 | 5 | #18,799 |
| 2004 | 43 | #2,566 | 0 | – |
| 2003 | 24 | #3,711 | 0 | – |
| 2002 | 22 | #3,895 | 0 | – |
| 2001 | 30 | #3,052 | 0 | – |
| 2000 | 26 | #3,288 | 0 | – |
| 1999 | 35 | #2,550 | 0 | – |
| 1998 | 21 | #3,579 | 0 | – |
| 1997 | 20 | #3,568 | 0 | – |
| 1996 | 20 | #3,534 | 0 | – |
| 1995 | 21 | #3,286 | 0 | – |
| 1994 | 22 | #3,196 | 5 | #15,437 |
| 1993 | 19 | #3,482 | 0 | – |
| 1992 | 17 | #3,727 | 0 | – |
| 1991 | 14 | #4,192 | 0 | – |
| 1990 | 15 | #3,941 | 0 | – |
| 1989 | 20 | #3,076 | 0 | – |
| 1988 | 24 | #2,502 | 0 | – |
| 1987 | 20 | #2,711 | 0 | – |
| 1986 | 23 | #2,421 | 0 | – |
| 1985 | 19 | #2,698 | 6 | #10,503 |
| 1984 | 25 | #2,153 | 8 | #8,053 |
| 1983 | 26 | #2,076 | 0 | – |
| 1982 | 25 | #2,160 | 0 | – |
| 1981 | 26 | #2,081 | 6 | #10,222 |
| 1980 | 12 | #3,585 | 0 | – |
| 1979 | 13 | #3,329 | 0 | – |
| 1978 | 16 | #2,780 | 0 | – |
| 1977 | 13 | #3,179 | 0 | – |
| 1976 | 23 | #2,109 | 0 | – |
| 1975 | 10 | #3,629 | 0 | – |
| 1974 | 21 | #2,119 | 0 | – |
| 1973 | 16 | #2,500 | 0 | – |
| 1972 | 0 | – | 5 | #9,423 |
| 1971 | 7 | #4,322 | 0 | – |
| 1970 | 12 | #2,870 | 0 | – |
| 1969 | 20 | #1,905 | 0 | – |
| 1968 | 13 | #2,432 | 0 | – |
| 1967 | 14 | #2,235 | 0 | – |
| 1966 | 18 | #1,885 | 0 | – |
| 1965 | 12 | #2,453 | 0 | – |
| 1964 | 15 | #2,193 | 0 | – |
| 1963 | 18 | #1,950 | 0 | – |
| 1962 | 16 | #2,105 | 0 | – |
| 1961 | 12 | #2,525 | 0 | – |
| 1960 | 26 | #1,616 | 0 | – |
| 1959 | 13 | #2,398 | 0 | – |
| 1958 | 17 | #2,013 | 0 | – |
| 1957 | 16 | #2,079 | 0 | – |
| 1956 | 22 | #1,713 | 0 | – |
| 1955 | 20 | #1,784 | 0 | – |
| 1954 | 23 | #1,623 | 0 | – |
| 1953 | 18 | #1,892 | 0 | – |
| 1952 | 22 | #1,656 | 0 | – |
| 1951 | 27 | #1,452 | 0 | – |
| 1950 | 21 | #1,651 | 0 | – |
| 1949 | 18 | #1,813 | 0 | – |
| 1948 | 44 | #1,073 | 0 | – |
| 1947 | 35 | #1,250 | 0 | – |
| 1946 | 18 | #1,749 | 0 | – |
| 1945 | 24 | #1,373 | 0 | – |
| 1944 | 31 | #1,206 | 0 | – |
| 1943 | 19 | #1,688 | 0 | – |
| 1942 | 30 | #1,295 | 0 | – |
| 1941 | 26 | #1,329 | 0 | – |
| 1940 | 32 | #1,205 | 0 | – |
| 1939 | 43 | #971 | 0 | – |
| 1938 | 27 | #1,307 | 0 | – |
| 1937 | 30 | #1,229 | 0 | – |
| 1936 | 26 | #1,320 | 0 | – |
| 1935 | 45 | #953 | 0 | – |
| 1934 | 39 | #1,055 | 0 | – |
| 1933 | 38 | #1,073 | 0 | – |
| 1932 | 51 | #912 | 0 | – |
| 1931 | 39 | #1,099 | 0 | – |
| 1930 | 38 | #1,149 | 0 | – |
| 1929 | 46 | #1,004 | 0 | – |
| 1928 | 54 | #926 | 0 | – |
| 1927 | 42 | #1,109 | 0 | – |
| 1926 | 43 | #1,088 | 0 | – |
| 1925 | 51 | #954 | 0 | – |
| 1924 | 56 | #942 | 0 | – |
| 1923 | 53 | #951 | 0 | – |
| 1922 | 69 | #817 | 0 | – |
| 1921 | 76 | #770 | 0 | – |
| 1920 | 69 | #811 | 0 | – |
| 1919 | 58 | #876 | 0 | – |
| 1918 | 61 | #850 | 0 | – |
| 1917 | 64 | #792 | 0 | – |
| 1916 | 60 | #801 | 0 | – |
| 1915 | 60 | #784 | 0 | – |
| 1914 | 45 | #793 | 0 | – |
| 1913 | 40 | #744 | 0 | – |
| 1912 | 45 | #621 | 0 | – |
| 1911 | 18 | #790 | 0 | – |
| 1910 | 30 | #520 | 0 | – |
| 1909 | 19 | #634 | 0 | – |
| 1908 | 17 | #654 | 0 | – |
| 1907 | 19 | #585 | 0 | – |
| 1906 | 19 | #544 | 0 | – |
| 1905 | 13 | #695 | 0 | – |
| 1904 | 17 | #561 | 0 | – |
| 1903 | 15 | #593 | 0 | – |
| 1902 | 13 | #644 | 0 | – |
| 1901 | 10 | #722 | 0 | – |
| 1900 | 26 | #454 | 0 | – |
| 1899 | 14 | #545 | 0 | – |
| 1898 | 15 | #568 | 0 | – |
| 1897 | 8 | #843 | 0 | – |
| 1896 | 13 | #634 | 0 | – |
| 1895 | 16 | #525 | 0 | – |
| 1894 | 14 | #564 | 0 | – |
| 1893 | 14 | #533 | 0 | – |
| 1892 | 22 | #413 | 0 | – |
| 1891 | 12 | #558 | 0 | – |
| 1890 | 15 | #508 | 0 | – |
| 1889 | 15 | #493 | 0 | – |
| 1888 | 24 | #383 | 0 | – |
| 1887 | 18 | #404 | 0 | – |
| 1886 | 16 | #467 | 0 | – |
| 1885 | 28 | #326 | 0 | – |
| 1884 | 18 | #446 | 0 | – |
| 1883 | 13 | #519 | 0 | – |
| 1882 | 16 | #465 | 0 | – |
| 1881 | 18 | #410 | 0 | – |
| 1880 | 15 | #477 | 0 | – |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Smith reached #326 in 1885. As a girl name, it reached #7,369 in 2018. 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 2010s, with a similar number of babies. They can work as sibling or middle names that feel like they belong together.
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.