Humanverse

Lashawna vs Lashunda

American parents have registered 2,270 Lashundas since 1880, against 1,802 Lashawnas. Neither name reached five babies in 2025.

Babies given each name, 1880–2025

Births per year: Lashawna against Lashunda, 1880 to 2025 0 40 80 120 160 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Lashawna Lashunda

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 53 years in which either name was published, Lashawna for 30 years and Lashunda for 23 years. The lead changed hands once.

Side by side

  Lashawna Lashunda
Total US births 1,8022,270
Most in one year 80148
Babies in 2025 under 5under 5
Estimated living today 1,7002,200
Median age today 4046
Peak year 19821977
Best rank 1,489th girls936th girls
Rank in 2025 unrankedunranked
First recorded 19651965
Girls / boys 1,802 / 02,270 / 0

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 Lashundas alive today are over 46; half the Lashawnas are over 40. That is 6 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: Lashawna and Lashunda.