Raquel

Raquel was the #1,120 girls' name in the US in 2025 (209 babies), and #2,138 in England & Wales and #1,429 in Canada.

Raquel as a girl’s name

  • US
  • England & Wales
  • Scotland
  • Canada
Raquel as a girl’s name, US, England & Wales, Scotland, CanadaBabies per 1,000 in the published list, 1880–2025, for US, England & Wales, Scotland, Canada. Gaps mark years with too few babies to be published.00.250.50.75118801900192019401960198020002020USCanadaEngland & Wales
Raquel as a girl’s name, US, England & Wales, Scotland, CanadaBabies per 1,000 in the published list, 1880–2025, for US, England & Wales, Scotland, Canada. Gaps mark years with too few babies to be published.00.250.50.7511880192019602000
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 & WalesScotlandCanada
2025#1,120 (209)#2,138 (13)—#1,429 (17)
2024#1,070 (232)#3,016 (8)—#2,685 (7)
2023#905 (295)#4,057 (5)—#2,027 (10)
2022#1,003 (261)#3,971 (5)—#2,315 (8)
2021#909 (296)#2,499 (10)—#1,778 (12)
2020#932 (277)#2,843 (8)—#1,249 (19)
2019#866 (309)#2,286 (11)—#1,683 (13)
2018#928 (288)#3,178 (7)—#1,639 (13)
2017#883 (308)#3,229 (7)—#2,041 (10)
2016#845 (336)#4,763 (4)—#1,230 (20)
2015#748 (377)#4,736 (4)—#1,312 (18)
2014#697 (404)#2,464 (10)—#972 (27)
2013#690 (409)#4,739 (4)—#1,091 (23)
2012#627 (456)#3,285 (7)—#1,410 (17)
2011#634 (449)#2,636 (9)—#797 (34)

The tide so far

  • Peaked in the US in 1970 at #215.
  • Falling over the last five years.
  • First recorded in the US in 1900.

How common is it?

about 1 in 7,700 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 7,700uncommon
England & WalesGirls2025about 1 in 20,000rare
CanadaGirls2025about 1 in 8,800uncommon

Next year

On its recent trend, Raquel is likely to hold steady in the US in 2026: about 1 in 8,000 baby girls. Likely range 1 in 6,500 to 1 in 9,700.

Estimate, not an official figure. How we estimate.

Across the US

Raquel 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: #1,210MINew York: #980NYMassachusetts: 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: #535NJConnecticut: #540CTRhode Island: fewer than 5 babiesRICalifornia: #1,027CAUtah: 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: #731MDDelaware: fewer than 5 babiesDEArizona: #748AZNew Mexico: fewer than 5 babiesNMKansas: fewer than 5 babiesKSArkansas: fewer than 5 babiesARTennessee: #1,127TNNorth Carolina: #1,138NCSouth 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: #742TXFlorida: #825FL
Raquel (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
RaquelCanadaGirls#1,42917
RaquelEngland & WalesGirls#2,13813
RaquelNorthern IrelandGirls—too few
RaquelScotlandGirls—too few
RaquelUSGirls#1,120209
RaquelUSBoys—too few