Is Tucker a boy or girl name?
Tucker is a boy name in the US. In 2024, 11 girls and 1,781 boys were named Tucker, so 0.6% were girls. Across 1880–2024, 0.7% of the 53,526 US babies named Tucker were girls.
- Boy rank, 2024
- #200
- Girl rank, 2024
- #9,477
- Babies named Tucker since 1884
- 53,526
- Most popular year
- 2014
- 2,439 babies
Boys and girls named Tucker, by decade
| Decade | Boys | Girls | Share girls |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1880s | 5 | 0 | 0% |
| 1890s | 5 | 0 | 0% |
| 1900s | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| 1910s | 65 | 0 | 0% |
| 1920s | 72 | 0 | 0% |
| 1930s | 92 | 0 | 0% |
| 1940s | 130 | 0 | 0% |
| 1950s | 143 | 0 | 0% |
| 1960s | 198 | 0 | 0% |
| 1970s | 527 | 0 | 0% |
| 1980s | 1,553 | 7 | 0.4% |
| 1990s | 7,020 | 79 | 1.1% |
| 2000s | 12,390 | 107 | 0.9% |
| 2010s | 21,255 | 138 | 0.6% |
| 2020s | 9,672 | 62 | 0.6% |
Every year
| Year | Boys | Boy rank | Girls | Girl rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 1,781 | #200 | 11 | #9,477 |
| 2023 | 1,807 | #205 | 12 | #8,938 |
| 2022 | 1,933 | #197 | 12 | #9,015 |
| 2021 | 2,138 | #180 | 10 | #10,237 |
| 2020 | 2,013 | #191 | 17 | #6,898 |
| 2019 | 2,018 | #196 | 11 | #9,682 |
| 2018 | 2,171 | #183 | 13 | #8,567 |
| 2017 | 2,221 | #179 | 18 | #6,784 |
| 2016 | 2,311 | #173 | 15 | #7,949 |
| 2015 | 2,234 | #186 | 14 | #8,406 |
| 2014 | 2,422 | #176 | 17 | #7,282 |
| 2013 | 2,241 | #179 | 16 | #7,723 |
| 2012 | 2,043 | #185 | 11 | #10,380 |
| 2011 | 1,840 | #196 | 11 | #10,340 |
| 2010 | 1,754 | #204 | 12 | #9,740 |
| 2009 | 1,612 | #226 | 6 | #17,148 |
| 2008 | 1,544 | #238 | 12 | #10,042 |
| 2007 | 1,464 | #246 | 13 | #9,508 |
| 2006 | 1,312 | #263 | 9 | #12,366 |
| 2005 | 1,224 | #273 | 11 | #10,090 |
| 2004 | 1,107 | #287 | 11 | #9,852 |
| 2003 | 1,040 | #295 | 7 | #13,762 |
| 2002 | 999 | #296 | 13 | #8,254 |
| 2001 | 1,041 | #287 | 11 | #9,320 |
| 2000 | 1,047 | #288 | 14 | #7,552 |
| 1999 | 971 | #296 | 9 | #10,296 |
| 1998 | 920 | #306 | 19 | #5,570 |
| 1997 | 902 | #302 | 8 | #10,776 |
| 1996 | 803 | #326 | 15 | #6,377 |
| 1995 | 709 | #348 | 0 | – |
| 1994 | 694 | #352 | 12 | #7,586 |
| 1993 | 601 | #384 | 9 | #9,504 |
| 1992 | 498 | #443 | 0 | – |
| 1991 | 488 | #446 | 0 | – |
| 1990 | 434 | #475 | 7 | #11,349 |
| 1989 | 371 | #497 | 0 | – |
| 1988 | 228 | #630 | 0 | – |
| 1987 | 142 | #775 | 0 | – |
| 1986 | 111 | #864 | 7 | #9,493 |
| 1985 | 141 | #751 | 0 | – |
| 1984 | 149 | #714 | 0 | – |
| 1983 | 123 | #790 | 0 | – |
| 1982 | 97 | #912 | 0 | – |
| 1981 | 87 | #970 | 0 | – |
| 1980 | 104 | #878 | 0 | – |
| 1979 | 82 | #983 | 0 | – |
| 1978 | 80 | #968 | 0 | – |
| 1977 | 68 | #1,053 | 0 | – |
| 1976 | 64 | #1,048 | 0 | – |
| 1975 | 61 | #1,082 | 0 | – |
| 1974 | 40 | #1,367 | 0 | – |
| 1973 | 29 | #1,652 | 0 | – |
| 1972 | 40 | #1,346 | 0 | – |
| 1971 | 37 | #1,413 | 0 | – |
| 1970 | 26 | #1,741 | 0 | – |
| 1969 | 24 | #1,721 | 0 | – |
| 1968 | 21 | #1,781 | 0 | – |
| 1967 | 30 | #1,409 | 0 | – |
| 1966 | 25 | #1,575 | 0 | – |
| 1965 | 26 | #1,552 | 0 | – |
| 1964 | 9 | #3,033 | 0 | – |
| 1963 | 15 | #2,195 | 0 | – |
| 1962 | 18 | #1,955 | 0 | – |
| 1961 | 16 | #2,140 | 0 | – |
| 1960 | 14 | #2,305 | 0 | – |
| 1959 | 8 | #3,270 | 0 | – |
| 1958 | 23 | #1,674 | 0 | – |
| 1957 | 16 | #2,084 | 0 | – |
| 1956 | 15 | #2,164 | 0 | – |
| 1955 | 21 | #1,723 | 0 | – |
| 1954 | 10 | #2,727 | 0 | – |
| 1953 | 9 | #2,890 | 0 | – |
| 1952 | 12 | #2,370 | 0 | – |
| 1951 | 16 | #1,965 | 0 | – |
| 1950 | 13 | #2,200 | 0 | – |
| 1949 | 16 | #1,937 | 0 | – |
| 1948 | 12 | #2,317 | 0 | – |
| 1947 | 17 | #1,911 | 0 | – |
| 1946 | 24 | #1,471 | 0 | – |
| 1945 | 7 | #2,978 | 0 | – |
| 1944 | 14 | #1,982 | 0 | – |
| 1943 | 8 | #2,948 | 0 | – |
| 1942 | 14 | #2,036 | 0 | – |
| 1941 | 9 | #2,637 | 0 | – |
| 1940 | 9 | #2,657 | 0 | – |
| 1939 | 6 | #3,463 | 0 | – |
| 1938 | 7 | #3,154 | 0 | – |
| 1937 | 10 | #2,470 | 0 | – |
| 1936 | 8 | #2,837 | 0 | – |
| 1935 | 16 | #1,828 | 0 | – |
| 1934 | 12 | #2,254 | 0 | – |
| 1933 | 8 | #2,988 | 0 | – |
| 1932 | 8 | #3,073 | 0 | – |
| 1931 | 10 | #2,637 | 0 | – |
| 1930 | 7 | #3,572 | 0 | – |
| 1929 | 6 | #3,922 | 0 | – |
| 1928 | 7 | #3,674 | 0 | – |
| 1927 | 9 | #3,131 | 0 | – |
| 1926 | 9 | #3,124 | 0 | – |
| 1925 | 11 | #2,741 | 0 | – |
| 1924 | 13 | #2,460 | 0 | – |
| 1923 | 5 | #4,832 | 0 | – |
| 1922 | 5 | #4,904 | 0 | – |
| 1921 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1920 | 7 | #3,787 | 0 | – |
| 1919 | 5 | #4,755 | 0 | – |
| 1918 | 8 | #3,349 | 0 | – |
| 1917 | 9 | #2,936 | 0 | – |
| 1916 | 11 | #2,526 | 0 | – |
| 1915 | 9 | #2,812 | 0 | – |
| 1914 | 10 | #2,258 | 0 | – |
| 1913 | 5 | #3,226 | 0 | – |
| 1912 | 8 | #2,035 | 0 | – |
| 1911 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1910 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1909 | 6 | #1,427 | 0 | – |
| 1908 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1907 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1906 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1905 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1904 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1903 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1902 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1901 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1900 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1899 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1898 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1897 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1896 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1895 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1894 | 5 | #1,222 | 0 | – |
| 1893 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1892 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1891 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1890 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1889 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1888 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1887 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1886 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1885 | 0 | – | 0 | – |
| 1884 | 5 | #1,113 | 0 | – |
Highest rank
As a boy name, Tucker reached #173 in 2016. As a girl name, it reached #5,570 in 1998. 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.