Ruthe vs Rutherford
American parents have registered 1,949 Ruthes since 1880, against 729 Rutherfords. Neither name reached five babies in 2025.
Babies given each name, 1880–2025
Ruthe 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 89 years in which either name was published, Ruthe for 62 years and Rutherford for 27 years. The lead changed hands 12 times.
- 1880–1898 Rutherford ahead
- 1899–1964 Ruthe ahead, apart from 3 short spells
- 1977–2023 Rutherford ahead
7 shorter spells of a year or two are folded into the spans above rather than listed separately.
Side by side
| Ruthe | Rutherford | |
|---|---|---|
| Total US births | 1,949 | 729 |
| Most in one year | 122 | 25 |
| Babies in 2025 | under 5 | under 5 |
| Estimated living today | 290 | 220 |
| Median age today | 78 | 55 |
| Peak year | 1924 | 1921 |
| Best rank | 673rd girls | 1,509th boys |
| Rank in 2025 | unranked | unranked |
| First recorded | 1898 | 1880 |
| Girls / boys | 1,949 / 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 Ruthes alive today are over 78; half the Rutherfords are over 55. That is 23 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: Ruthe and Rutherford.