Jose
#95 in the US in 2025
Jose in the United States
Between 2016 and 2025 the name has been steady.
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
Jose in New Zealand
Jose 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 | #161 | 84 |
| 1890 | #151 | 93 |
| 1900 | #137 | 161 |
| 1910 | #134 | 249 |
| 1920 | #130 | 1,241 |
| 1930 | #113 | 1,600 |
| 1940 | #148 | 1,169 |
| 1950 | #109 | 2,638 |
| 1960 | #107 | 3,915 |
| 1970 | #56 | 5,691 |
| 1980 | #46 | 8,323 |
| 1990 | #41 | 11,519 |
| 2000 | #34 | 12,585 |
| 2010 | #52 | 7,703 |
| 2020 | #94 | 3,855 |
Where in the United States
The states that registered Jose 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 |
|---|---|
| Texas | 170,769 |
| California | 167,241 |
| New York | 46,285 |
| Illinois | 25,902 |
| Arizona | 22,202 |
| Florida | 21,394 |
| New Jersey | 13,483 |
| New Mexico | 12,318 |
| Colorado | 8,592 |
| Washington | 7,102 |
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