Ruthann vs Rutherford
American parents have registered 7,098 Ruthanns since 1880, against 729 Rutherfords. Ruthann is still ahead, with 22 babies in 2025.
Babies given each name, 1880–2025
Ruthann Rutherford
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 126 years in which either name was published, Ruthann for 104 years and Rutherford for 22 years. The lead changed hands once.
- 1880–1921 Rutherford ahead
- 1922–2025 Ruthann ahead
Side by side
| Ruthann | Rutherford | |
|---|---|---|
| Total US births | 7,098 | 729 |
| Most in one year | 258 | 25 |
| Babies in 2025 | 22 | under 5 |
| Estimated living today | 4,900 | 220 |
| Median age today | 65 | 55 |
| Peak year | 1943 | 1921 |
| Best rank | 459th girls | 1,509th boys |
| Rank in 2025 | 5,554th | unranked |
| First recorded | 1906 | 1880 |
| Girls / boys | 7,098 / 0 | 0 / 729 |
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 Ruthanns alive today are over 65; half the Rutherfords are over 55. That is 10 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: Ruthann and Rutherford.