Radames vs Radford
American parents have registered 1,204 Radfords since 1880, against 819 Radameses. Radford is still ahead, with 6 babies in 2025.
Babies given each name, 1880–2025
Radames Radford
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
Of the 117 years in which either name was published, Radford for 71 years and Radames for 46 years. The lead changed hands 10 times.
Side by side
| Radames | Radford | |
|---|---|---|
| Total US births | 819 | 1,204 |
| Most in one year | 30 | 26 |
| Babies in 2025 | under 5 | 6 |
| Estimated living today | 730 | 570 |
| Median age today | 46 | 60 |
| Peak year | 1971 | 1935 |
| Best rank | 1,597th boys | 1,326th boys |
| Rank in 2025 | unranked | 10,695th |
| First recorded | 1950 | 1885 |
| Girls / boys | 0 / 819 | 0 / 1,204 |
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 Radfords alive today are over 60; half the Radameses are over 46. That is 14 years between them: two names in use at the same time, worn by two different generations.
Compare something else
Related comparisons
Social Security Administration birth records, 1880–2025, public domain. Full histories: Radames and Radford.