NameTides

Kim

Kim was the #4,172 girls' name in the US in 2025 (34 babies), and #3,333 in England & Wales and #1,668 in Canada.

Kim as a girl’s name

  • US
  • England & Wales
  • Scotland
  • Northern Ireland
  • Ireland
  • Canada
  • NSW
Kim as a girl’s name, US, England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Canada, NSWBabies per 1,000 in the published list, 1880–2025, for US, England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Canada. Gaps mark years with too few babies to be published.02.557.51018801900192019401960198020002020CanadaEngland & WalesUS
Kim as a girl’s name, US, England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Canada, NSWBabies per 1,000 in the published list, 1880–2025, for US, England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Canada. Gaps mark years with too few babies to be published.02.557.5101880192019602000
Babies per 1,000 of the same sex in each published list. New South Wales publishes its top 100 only, so it appears in the rank view and only in years the name made the top 100. Breaks in a line are years with too few babies to be published.
Show the numbers
YearUSEngland & WalesScotlandNorthern IrelandIrelandCanadaNSW
2025#4,172 (34)#3,333 (7)———#1,668 (14)—
2024#4,772 (28)#4,193 (5)——#736 (4)#3,383 (5)—
2023#3,911 (38)#2,689 (9)———#1,582 (14)—
2022#3,765 (40)#3,149 (7)——#634 (5)#1,313 (18)—
2021#3,801 (39)#3,192 (7)——#661 (5)#1,522 (15)—
2020#3,735 (39)#2,843 (8)——#834 (3)#1,490 (15)—
2019#3,002 (54)#4,686 (4)———#1,231 (20)—
2018#4,001 (36)#5,666 (3)——#896 (3)#1,062 (24)—
2017#3,346 (47)#3,583 (6)———#857 (32)—
2016#3,100 (53)#3,609 (6)———#811 (34)—
2015#2,501 (72)#1,961 (14)——#581 (6)#640 (46)—
2014#2,560 (69)#1,562 (19)#603 (5)—#584 (6)#731 (38)—
2013#2,769 (62)#3,160 (7)——#747 (4)#523 (58)—
2012#2,078 (92)#3,681 (6)—#451 (3)#435 (10)#679 (43)—
2011#3,267 (50)#2,893 (8)——#510 (8)#567 (51)—

Kim as a boy’s name

  • US
  • England & Wales
  • Ireland
  • Canada
  • NSW
Kim as a boy’s name, US, England & Wales, Ireland, Canada, NSWBabies per 1,000 in the published list, 1880–2025, for US, England & Wales, Ireland, Canada. Gaps mark years with too few babies to be published.00.511.5218801900192019401960198020002020US
Kim as a boy’s name, US, England & Wales, Ireland, Canada, NSWBabies per 1,000 in the published list, 1880–2025, for US, England & Wales, Ireland, 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. New South Wales publishes its top 100 only, so it appears in the rank view and only in years the name made the top 100. Breaks in a line are years with too few babies to be published.
Show the numbers
YearUSEngland & WalesIrelandCanadaNSW
2025#10,695 (6)————
2024#6,469 (13)————
2023#8,255 (9)————
2022#7,768 (10)————
2021#8,825 (8)————
2020#7,502 (10)————
2019#7,643 (10)————
2018#12,156 (5)————
2017#8,840 (8)————
2016#9,664 (7)————
2015#7,066 (11)#4,747 (3)———
2014#4,866 (19)————
2013#8,789 (8)#3,822 (4)———
2012#8,158 (9)#4,805 (3)———
2011#9,600 (7)————

The tide so far

  • Peaked in the US in 1960 at #34.
  • Holding steady over the last five years.
  • First recorded in the US in 1914.
  • In 2025, 85% of US babies named Kim were girls.

How common is it?

about 1 in 48,000 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 48,000rare
England & WalesGirls2025about 1 in 36,000rare
CanadaGirls2025about 1 in 11,000rare
USBoys2025about 1 in 250,000rare

Next year

On its recent trend, Kim is likely to keep falling in the US in 2026: about 1 in 55,000 baby girls. Likely range 1 in 42,000 to 1 in 72,000.

Estimate, not an official figure. How we estimate.

Across the US

Kim 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: fewer than 5 babiesMINew York: #2,075NYMassachusetts: 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: fewer than 5 babiesOHPennsylvania: 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: fewer than 5 babiesVAMaryland: 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: fewer than 5 babiesGAHawaii: fewer than 5 babiesHITexas: fewer than 5 babiesTXFlorida: fewer than 5 babiesFL
Kim (girls) rank in each state, 2025. Hatched states recorded fewer than 5 babies.
  • #1–10
  • #11–50
  • #51–100
  • #101–500
  • below #500

Across Canada

ProvinceYearRankBabies
Quebec2025#7745

Kim (girls): rank in each province’s latest list. Only Quebec and Ontario publish full name lists; Ontario’s latest list is a year behind.

Spellings

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

SpellingWhereSexLatest rankBabies
KimCanadaGirls#1,66814
KimCanadaBoys—too few
KimEngland & WalesGirls#3,3337
KimEngland & WalesBoys—too few
KimIrelandGirls—too few
KimIrelandBoys—too few
KimNorthern IrelandGirls—too few
KimNorthern IrelandBoys—too few
KimNSWGirls—too few
KimNSWBoys—too few
KimScotlandGirls—too few
KimUSGirls#4,17234
KimUSBoys#10,6956