Ashanti

Ashanti was the #2,099 girls' name in the US in 2025 (89 babies), and #3,035 in England & Wales and #2,730 in Canada.

Ashanti as a girl’s name

  • US
  • England & Wales
  • Canada
Ashanti as a girl’s name, US, England & Wales, CanadaBabies per 1,000 in the published list, 1880–2025, for US, England & Wales, Canada. Gaps mark years with too few babies to be published.00.511.5218801900192019401960198020002020USCanadaEngland & Wales
Ashanti as a girl’s name, US, England & Wales, CanadaBabies per 1,000 in the published list, 1880–2025, for US, England & Wales, Canada. Gaps mark years with too few babies to be published.00.511.521880192019602000
Babies per 1,000 of the same sex in each published list. Breaks in a line are years with too few babies to be published.
Show the numbers
YearUSEngland & WalesCanada
2025#2,099 (89)#3,035 (8)#2,730 (7)
2024#1,980 (99)#2,412 (11)#3,383 (5)
2023#1,699 (121)#2,201 (12)#3,290 (5)
2022#1,731 (120)#1,767 (16)#2,315 (8)
2021#1,897 (104)#2,073 (13)—
2020#1,808 (109)#2,163 (12)#2,591 (7)
2019#1,392 (161)#2,458 (10)—
2018#1,371 (164)#2,090 (13)—
2017#1,552 (141)#2,925 (8)#2,609 (7)
2016#1,434 (161)#2,233 (12)#2,595 (7)
2015#1,464 (157)#2,328 (11)—
2014#1,291 (184)#1,628 (18)#2,374 (8)
2013#1,148 (209)#1,587 (19)—
2012#1,214 (200)#1,649 (18)#2,158 (9)
2011#1,045 (236)#1,149 (29)#2,899 (6)

The tide so far

  • Peaked in the US in 2002 at #115.
  • Holding steady over the last five years.
  • First recorded in the US in 1970.

How common is it?

about 1 in 18,000 baby girls in the published US list for 2025.

In a group of 1,000 children born that year, you would expect to meet fewer than 1. How we work this out.

How common, country by country

WhereSexLatest yearShareVerdict
USGirls2025about 1 in 18,000rare
England & WalesGirls2025about 1 in 31,000rare
CanadaGirls2025about 1 in 21,000rare

Next year

On its recent trend, Ashanti is likely to hold steady in the US in 2026: about 1 in 18,000 baby girls. Likely range 1 in 14,000 to 1 in 22,000.

Estimate, not an official figure. How we estimate.

Across the US

Ashanti by state, 2025Alaska: fewer than 5 babiesAKMaine: fewer than 5 babiesMEWisconsin: fewer than 5 babiesWIVermont: fewer than 5 babiesVTNew Hampshire: fewer than 5 babiesNHWashington: fewer than 5 babiesWAIdaho: fewer than 5 babiesIDMontana: fewer than 5 babiesMTNorth Dakota: fewer than 5 babiesNDMinnesota: fewer than 5 babiesMNIllinois: fewer than 5 babiesILMichigan: #1,061MINew York: #1,830NYMassachusetts: fewer than 5 babiesMAOregon: fewer than 5 babiesORNevada: fewer than 5 babiesNVWyoming: fewer than 5 babiesWYSouth Dakota: fewer than 5 babiesSDIowa: fewer than 5 babiesIAIndiana: fewer than 5 babiesINOhio: #1,438OHPennsylvania: fewer than 5 babiesPANew Jersey: fewer than 5 babiesNJConnecticut: fewer than 5 babiesCTRhode Island: fewer than 5 babiesRICalifornia: #2,487CAUtah: fewer than 5 babiesUTColorado: fewer than 5 babiesCONebraska: fewer than 5 babiesNEMissouri: fewer than 5 babiesMOKentucky: fewer than 5 babiesKYWest Virginia: fewer than 5 babiesWVVirginia: #1,180VAMaryland: fewer than 5 babiesMDDelaware: fewer than 5 babiesDEArizona: fewer than 5 babiesAZNew Mexico: fewer than 5 babiesNMKansas: fewer than 5 babiesKSArkansas: fewer than 5 babiesARTennessee: fewer than 5 babiesTNNorth Carolina: fewer than 5 babiesNCSouth Carolina: fewer than 5 babiesSCDistrict of Columbia: fewer than 5 babiesDCOklahoma: fewer than 5 babiesOKLouisiana: fewer than 5 babiesLAMississippi: fewer than 5 babiesMSAlabama: fewer than 5 babiesALGeorgia: #1,358GAHawaii: fewer than 5 babiesHITexas: #1,790TXFlorida: fewer than 5 babiesFL
Ashanti (girls) rank in each state, 2025. Hatched states recorded fewer than 5 babies.
  • #1–10
  • #11–50
  • #51–100
  • #101–500
  • below #500

Spellings

Official statistics count each spelling separately, so we show them side by side rather than adding them up.

SpellingWhereSexLatest rankBabies
AshantiCanadaGirls#2,7307
AshantiEngland & WalesGirls#3,0358
AshantiEngland & WalesBoys—too few
AshantiNorthern IrelandGirls—too few
AshantiUSGirls#2,09989
AshantiUSBoys—too few