One subject, in depth · bridged to FuelFacts
NameCurve
Girls' name · 13,116 recorded births

Bridgett

#8,362 in the US in 2025

Where Bridgett stands

United States register · 1880–2025

#8,362girls’ names · US 2025

Bridgett was the 8,362nd most registered girls' name in the United States in 2025, on 12 births.

peak 1970 · 482BELOW THE 5-BIRTH FLOOR — NOT PUBLISHED188019532025

Its moment was 1970, when 482 babies were given it. In 2 of the years between, the name fell under the 5-birth floor and the registrar published nothing — those years are the marks along the base of the chart, not gaps in the name's use.

SOURCE·US Social Security Administration, national baby-name data·Public domain. retrieved from the Internet Archive's 2026 snapshot of ssa.gov (ssa.gov refuses automated requests); files unmodified. SSA lists a name only if it was given to at least 5 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026

#8,362US rank, 2025 (girls)
12US births in 2025
#434its best US rank, in 1973
1970peak year — 482 births
13,116US births since 1942
Saved in this browser only — no account, nothing sent anywhere.

How Bridgett's figures are worked out

  1. 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. The SSA files are the agency's own, retrieved from the Internet Archive's 2026 snapshot of ssa.gov (ssa.gov refuses automated requests); files unmodified.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The reporting floor. Each registrar publishes a name only once it clears a threshold — 5 births of that sex in the US, 10 in New Zealand. Expressed as a share that threshold is itself a curve, and it is drawn on every chart here as the shaded band along the base.
  5. A missing year is a suppressed value, never a zero. Where the registrar published nothing, this site prints “below floor” or “<5”, the curve is broken rather than drawn across the gap, and the missing years are marked on the floor line. Bridgett was under the floor in 2 years of its US record.
share per 100,000 = births ÷ all births of that sex that year × 100,000
reporting floor (share) = 5 ÷ all births of that sex that year × 100,000

Full methodology →

Bridgett in the United States

18801900192019401960198020002020NOT PUBLISHED — BELOW THE 5-BIRTH FLOOR0.01531
Births per 100,000 of that sex, so eras compare fairly. The shaded band is the 5-birth reporting floor — under it the registrar publishes nothing, so a line that stops has left the record, not fallen to zero. Bridgett in the United States, 1880–2025

Between 2016 and 2025 the name has been falling — down 45% as a share of girls' births.

SOURCE·US Social Security Administration, national baby-name data·Public domain. retrieved from the Internet Archive's 2026 snapshot of ssa.gov (ssa.gov refuses automated requests); files unmodified. SSA lists a name only if it was given to at least 5 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026

Bridgett in New Zealand

Bridgett 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

Bridgett in England & Wales

Bridgett does not appear in the ONS list for England and Wales. That means it was given to fewer than 3 babies in every year from 2019 to 2025 — not that it is unused there. ONS publishes only those seven years, so a name that had its moment in England before 2019 is invisible here however common it once was.

SOURCE·Office for National Statistics, baby names in England and Wales·Open Government Licence v3.0. ONS redacts any name given to 2 or fewer babies of that sex that year, under s40 of the Freedom of Information Act.·REVIEWED JUL 2026

Decade by decade in the US

US rank and births at each decade markSSA · JUL 2026
YearRankBirths
1950#2,65215
1960#711206
1970#453482
1980#575323
1990#841234
2000#1,617109
2010#3,20351
2020#6,62917

<5 = the SSA published no figure for that year. It is a suppressed value, not a zero.

Where in the United States

The states that registered Bridgett most often since 1942. These are lifetime totals, so they track state population as much as local taste — a name common in Wyoming will never out-count California.

Questions about Bridgett

How popular is the name Bridgett?

Bridgett ranked #8,362 for girls in the United States in 2025, on 12 births registered with the Social Security Administration.

When was Bridgett most popular?

Bridgett peaked in 1970, when 482 babies in the United States were given the name.

Is Bridgett rising or falling?

Measured as a share of all girls' births, Bridgett has been falling between 2016 and 2025 (-45%).

Same sex, peaking within a few years of 1970, at a comparable scale. Not a taste engine — this is arithmetic on peak years, which is why it will occasionally hand you something unfashionable that is nonetheless exactly of the period.

SOURCE·US SSA (1880–2025) + NZ DIA (1900–2025) birth registrations·ranks and shares computed from the source files, see method·REVIEWED JUL 2026

See what every site in this family answers

Published by

Amit Sharma

Auckland real-estate agent and marketer. Builds free, sourced data tools.