Hoyt
#2,833 in the US in 2025
Hoyt in the United States
Between 2016 and 2025 the name has been falling — down 54% as a share of boys' births.
SOURCE·US Social Security Administration, national baby-name data·Public domain. SSA lists a name only if it was given to at least 5 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026
Hoyt in New Zealand
Hoyt never reached 10 births in a single year in New Zealand, so it does not appear in the DIA file. That is a reporting floor, not a zero — the name may still have been registered here, just never ten times in one year.
SOURCE·NZ Department of Internal Affairs, births by first name·CC BY 4.0. DIA lists a name only if it was given to at least 10 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026
Decade by decade in the US
| Year | Rank | Births |
|---|---|---|
| 1880 | #909 | 5 |
| 1890 | #511 | 14 |
| 1900 | #785 | 11 |
| 1910 | #556 | 26 |
| 1920 | #475 | 164 |
| 1930 | #466 | 162 |
| 1940 | #635 | 88 |
| 1950 | #806 | 71 |
| 1960 | #1,083 | 51 |
| 1970 | #1,351 | 38 |
| 1980 | #2,831 | 16 |
| 1990 | #4,167 | 13 |
| 2000 | #5,920 | 11 |
| 2010 | #1,850 | 78 |
| 2020 | #1,962 | 73 |
Where in the United States
The states that registered Hoyt most often since 1880. These are lifetime totals, so they track state population as much as local taste — a name common in Wyoming will never out-count California.
| State | Births |
|---|---|
| Georgia | 1,285 |
| Alabama | 908 |
| South Carolina | 489 |
| Texas | 401 |
| North Carolina | 372 |
| Tennessee | 371 |
| Arkansas | 189 |
| Oklahoma | 181 |
| Missouri | 76 |
| Mississippi | 60 |
How these figures are worked out
- Counts come straight from the registrars: the US Social Security Administration (1880–2025) and the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (1900–2025). Nothing is scraped from another names site.
- Ranks are computed against every name in that year's file, not just the ones this site publishes pages for — otherwise a rank would flatter every name we happen to list.
- The curve is drawn on births per 100,000 of that sex, not raw counts. Raw counts across eras are misleading: far more births were registered in 1957 than in 1890, so a flat count is a falling share.
- Each country hides small numbers — the US below 5 births a year, New Zealand below 10. A gap in a line is "below the floor", never "nobody".
SOURCE·US SSA (1880–2025) + NZ DIA (1900–2025) birth registrations·ranks and shares computed from the source files, see method·REVIEWED JUL 2026