Lila vs Lilburn
American parents have registered 76,550 Lilas since 1880, against 713 Lilburns. Lila is still ahead, with 1,670 babies in 2025.
Babies given each name, 1880–2025
Lila Lilburn
Each line is every baby given the name that year, girls and boys added together — the only count that means the same thing for both names. A line breaks where the name fell below five babies in a year — the point at which the SSA stops publishing it — rather than being drawn through a figure nobody published. A single published year in a gap shows as a dot.
Who was ahead
Lila has been the commoner name in every year either was published, 1880 to 2025. The lead has never changed hands.
The closest they came was 1886, when Lila had 69 and Lilburn had 6.
Side by side
| Lila | Lilburn | |
|---|---|---|
| Total US births | 76,550 | 713 |
| Most in one year | 1,969 | 38 |
| Babies in 2025 | 1,670 | under 5 |
| Estimated living today | 47,000 | 90 |
| Median age today | 15 | 80 |
| Peak year | 2010 | 1925 |
| Best rank | 155th girls | 1,144th boys |
| Rank in 2025 | 186th | unranked |
| First recorded | 1880 | 1886 |
| Girls / boys | 76,493 / 57 | 0 / 713 |
A rank is a position within one sex’s list for one year, so the two rank rows are not subtracted from one another and the winning column is not marked on them. The living figure is a life-table estimate, not a count.
Which name is older
Half of the Lilburns alive today are over 80; half the Lilas are over 15. That is 65 years between them: two names in use at the same time, worn by two different generations.
Where each one is strongest
- Lila North Dakota (2.8×), South Dakota (2.7×), South Carolina (2.2×)
- Lilburn Kentucky (25.4×), Missouri (11.4×)
How much commoner the name is in that state than it is nationally, from births recorded since 1910.
Compare something else
Related comparisons
Social Security Administration birth records, 1880–2025, public domain. Full histories: Lila and Lilburn.