Wilba vs Wilma
American parents have registered 140,855 Wilmas since 1880, against 165 Wilbas. Wilma is still ahead, with 41 babies in 2025.
Babies given each name, 1880–2025
Wilba Wilma
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
Wilma has been the commoner name in every year either was published, 1880 to 2025. The lead has never changed hands.
The closest they came was 1913, when Wilba had 18 and Wilma had 1,484.
Side by side
| Wilba | Wilma | |
|---|---|---|
| Total US births | 165 | 140,855 |
| Most in one year | 18 | 4,202 |
| Babies in 2025 | under 5 | 41 |
| Estimated living today | 14 | 38,000 |
| Median age today | 87 | 77 |
| Peak year | 1913 | 1925 |
| Best rank | 1,358th girls | 62nd girls |
| Rank in 2025 | unranked | 3,645th |
| First recorded | 1913 | 1880 |
| Girls / boys | 165 / 0 | 140,101 / 754 |
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 Wilbas alive today are over 87; half the Wilmas are over 77. 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: Wilba and Wilma.