Gracelynn vs Emma
How Gracelynn and Emma compare across 146 years of US Social Security Administration baby-name records — popularity history, peak years, current rank, and which name overtook which.
US Popularity History — Side-by-Side
Annual US births named Gracelynn (girls) vs Emma (girls), from US Social Security Administration national records.
Source: US Social Security Administration. Names appearing fewer than 5 times per year are suppressed by SSA.
Quick Stats
| Metric | Gracelynn | Emma |
|---|---|---|
| Peak year (most US births) | 2020 — 1,031 girls | 2003 — 22,719 girls |
| Peak rank | #311 | #2 |
| Most recent rank (2025) | #442 (698 births) | #3 (12,754 births) |
| Total US births since 1880 | 11,967 | 713,779 |
| Last 10 years (2016–2025) | 8,687 | 161,030 |
Peak comparison takeaway
At its all-time peak, Emma reached 22,719 US births in 2003 — 21,688 more than Gracelynn's peak count.
Strongest States — Last 10 Years
States where each name ranked highest, from SSA's state-level dataset. Lower average rank = name appears closer to the top of that state's girls-name list.
Gracelynn — top 5 states
| # | State | Avg rank | Births |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | West Virginia | #93 | 164 |
| 2 | Kentucky | #122 | 314 |
| 3 | Arkansas | #143 | 185 |
| 4 | Indiana | #165 | 383 |
| 5 | Mississippi | #168 | 155 |
Emma — top 5 states
| # | State | Avg rank | Births |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas | #1 | 17,678 |
| 2 | New York | #2 | 8,974 |
| 3 | New Jersey | #2 | 4,400 |
| 4 | Arizona | #2 | 3,425 |
| 5 | Pennsylvania | #2 | 5,543 |
Want a different comparison?
Data & methodology
Source: US Social Security Administration national baby names dataset 1880–2025 (CC0 public domain). Names with fewer than 5 occurrences in a given year are suppressed by SSA. State-level coverage runs 1910–2025. Crossover detection compares annual birth counts (not ranks) for each year both names appear. Methodology: see full notes. More comparisons →