Thirty years of Lilah
Lilah in numbers
Lilah has climbed from 4 girls in 1996 to 464 in 2025, close to its peak of 513 in 2023. Its biggest three-year rise came between 2020 and 2023, from 252 to 513. It ranked 3,126th in 1996, reached 95th in 2023 and ranks 99th now. On average it was given to 25 girls a year in the 2000s, 168 in the 2010s and 398 in the 2020s so far.
† Shapes, averages and turning points are Baby Data calculations from the ONS counts.
Milestones
First year in each bandChange
- On last year+12%416 to 464
- 5 years+84%252 to 464
- 10 years+161%178 to 464
- 20 years+2,009%22 to 464
- Since 1996×1164 to 464
- Total, 1996 to 20254,331girls
† All changes and totals are Baby Data calculations from ONS counts. A total adds only the published years.
Across the three nations, 2025
Each from its own statistics office, never added togetherRank 99 · ONS · 416 in 2024
Rank 100 · NRS · 40 in 2024
Rank 111 · NISRA · 18 in 2024
England and Wales (ONS) count births in the calendar year; Scotland (NRS) and Northern Ireland (NISRA) count births registered in the year. Each comes from its own statistics office and they are never added together.
Year by year, 1996 to 2025 Show all 30 yearsHide the table
| Year | Rank | Babies | Change† | 1 in X† |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 99 | 464 | +12% | 1 in 614 |
| 2024 | =116 | 416 | -19% | 1 in 696 |
| 2023 | 95 | 513 | +15% | 1 in 561 |
| 2022 | 116 | 446 | +49% | 1 in 661 |
| 2021 | 171 | 299 | +19% | 1 in 1,019 |
| 2020 | =195 | 252 | +12% | 1 in 1,188 |
| 2019 | 217 | 226 | +14% | 1 in 1,377 |
| 2018 | 249 | 199 | -17% | 1 in 1,605 |
| 2017 | =217 | 240 | +28% | 1 in 1,379 |
| 2016 | 267 | 187 | +5% | 1 in 1,814 |
| 2015 | =273 | 178 | -10% | 1 in 1,908 |
| 2014 | 248 | 198 | +13% | 1 in 1,709 |
| 2013 * | =270 | 175 | +50% | 1 in 1,951 |
| 2012 | =397 | 117 | +39% | 1 in 3,037 |
| 2011 | =502 | 84 | +11% | 1 in 4,202 |
| 2010 | =526 | 76 | +55% | 1 in 4,634 |
| 2009 | =738 | 49 | -11% | 1 in 7,022 |
| 2008 | =668 | 55 | +22% | 1 in 6,286 |
| 2007 | =742 | 45 | +50% | 1 in 7,456 |
| 2006 | =958 | 30 | +36% | 1 in 10,906 |
| 2005 | =1,121 | 22 | +10% | 1 in 14,328 |
| 2004 | =1,158 | 20 | +43% | 1 in 15,569 |
| 2003 | =1,472 | 14 | +100% | 1 in 21,645 |
| 2002 | =2,301 | 7 | +0% | 1 in 41,435 |
| 2001 | =2,226 | 7 | +40% | 1 in 41,426 |
| 2000 | =2,746 | 5 | 1 in 58,961 | |
| 1999 | n/a | under 3 | ||
| 1998 | =3,848 | 3 | n/a | |
| 1997 | n/a | under 3 | ||
| 1996 | =3,126 | 4 | 1 in 78,997 |
* ONS’s girls’ 2013 file repeats the May total as April, so the 2013 births total is about 1,360 too high and 1 in X for 2013 is slightly too high. 1 in X is not shown for girls in 1998: one monthly total is missing from the ONS girls’ 1998 file. Rank follows ONS: names with the same count share a rank (shown with =). “Under 3” means the name was given to fewer than 3 babies that year, so ONS did not publish it.
Compare Lilah
Draws the second name on the chart above, on a shared scale.
Share and download
Lilah is in the free dataset (CSV and JSON), with the method and how to cite it.
Source: Office for National Statistics, Baby names in England and Wales, licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0; National Records of Scotland; NISRA. Exact spellings are counted separately and names given to fewer than 3 babies are not published. Figures marked † are Baby Data calculations. How we calculate