Rayne vs Raynell
American parents have registered 9,380 Raynes since 1880, against 1,155 Raynells. Rayne is still ahead, with 368 babies in 2025.
Babies given each name, 1880–2025
Rayne Raynell
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 92 years in which either name was published, Raynell for 50 years and Rayne for 42 years. The lead changed hands 13 times.
9 shorter spells of a year or two are folded into the spans above rather than listed separately.
Side by side
| Rayne | Raynell | |
|---|---|---|
| Total US births | 9,380 | 1,155 |
| Most in one year | 435 | 30 |
| Babies in 2025 | 368 | under 5 |
| Estimated living today | 9,300 | 990 |
| Median age today | 12 | 45 |
| Peak year | 2019 | 1956 |
| Best rank | 733rd girls | 2,622nd girls |
| Rank in 2025 | 904th | unranked |
| First recorded | 1947 | 1925 |
| Girls / boys | 8,034 / 1,346 | 716 / 439 |
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 Raynells alive today are over 45; half the Raynes are over 12. That is 33 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: Rayne and Raynell.