Jim vs Michael
How Jim and Michael 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 Jim (boys) vs Michael (boys), 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 | Jim | Michael |
|---|---|---|
| Peak year (most US births) | 1959 — 5,687 boys | 1957 — 92,786 boys |
| Peak rank | #70 | #1 |
| Most recent rank (1963) | #92 (4,237 births) | #21 (8,094 births) |
| Total US births since 1880 | 88,370 | 4,426,620 |
| Last 10 years (1954–1963) | 30,458 | 101,773 |
Peak comparison takeaway
At its all-time peak, Michael reached 92,786 US births in 1957 — 87,099 more than Jim's peak count.
Crossover Years
Years where one name first passed the other in annual US births. A name "winning" in a year means it had more births that year, not necessarily a higher rank.
| Year | New leader | Jim births | Michael births |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1881 | Jim | 323 | 298 |
| 1884 | Michael | 346 | 373 |
| 1885 | Jim | 370 | 370 |
| 1887 | Michael | 339 | 344 |
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 boys-name list.
Michael — top 5 states
| # | State | Avg rank | Births |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New Jersey | #5 | 3,719 |
| 2 | New York | #7 | 7,385 |
| 3 | Pennsylvania | #9 | 4,259 |
| 4 | Connecticut | #10 | 1,324 |
| 5 | Florida | #11 | 6,385 |
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 →