Raeford vs Raegan
American parents have registered 25,492 Raegans since 1880, against 613 Raefords. Raegan is still ahead, with 594 babies in 2025.
Babies given each name, 1880–2025
Raeford Raegan
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 110 years in which either name was published, Raegan for 62 years and Raeford for 48 years. The lead changed hands 3 times.
Side by side
| Raeford | Raegan | |
|---|---|---|
| Total US births | 613 | 25,492 |
| Most in one year | 21 | 1,417 |
| Babies in 2025 | under 5 | 594 |
| Estimated living today | 210 | 25,000 |
| Median age today | 72 | 12 |
| Peak year | 1941 | 2019 |
| Best rank | 1,485th boys | 219th girls |
| Rank in 2025 | unranked | 505th |
| First recorded | 1914 | 1956 |
| Girls / boys | 0 / 613 | 25,214 / 278 |
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 Raefords alive today are over 72; half the Raegans are over 12. That is 60 years between them: two names in use at the same time, worn by two different generations.
Where each one is strongest
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: Raeford and Raegan.