Ruthanne vs Rutherford
American parents have registered 2,685 Ruthannes since 1880, against 729 Rutherfords. Ruthanne is still ahead, with 18 babies in 2025.
Babies given each name, 1880–2025
Ruthanne 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, Ruthanne for 94 years and Rutherford for 32 years. The lead changed hands 7 times.
- 1880–1928 Rutherford ahead
- 1929 Ruthanne ahead
- 1930 Rutherford ahead
- 1931–1932 Ruthanne ahead
- 1933 Rutherford ahead
- 1934 Ruthanne ahead
- 1935 Rutherford ahead
- 1936–2025 Ruthanne ahead
Side by side
| Ruthanne | Rutherford | |
|---|---|---|
| Total US births | 2,685 | 729 |
| Most in one year | 90 | 25 |
| Babies in 2025 | 18 | under 5 |
| Estimated living today | 2,000 | 220 |
| Median age today | 58 | 55 |
| Peak year | 1946 | 1921 |
| Best rank | 874th girls | 1,509th boys |
| Rank in 2025 | 6,325th | unranked |
| First recorded | 1918 | 1880 |
| Girls / boys | 2,685 / 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 Ruthannes alive today are over 58; half the Rutherfords are over 55. That is 3 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: Ruthanne and Rutherford.