Skip to content
Little Names.

Spelling comparison

Layla vs Laila

Side by side for 2025, Layla has the higher published total (5,338) and Laila has 755. Layla is 87.6% of the pair and Laila is 12.4%.

US national data through 2025 · Source retrieved

Data updated

The two spellings share a Little Names spelling key. Layla profile · Laila profile

Layla versus Laila is a spelling comparison, not a comparison of two different names. Each figure belongs to one exact spelling. Layla and Laila use the same number of letters, so the contrast is which letters appear. Layla uses “y” where Laila uses “i”, between “La” and “la”.

In years when both spellings were published, the lead changed once. The latest crossover is 1971, when Layla moved ahead of Laila on the combined published count (42 to 24).

Layla is first published in these national files in 1950, and Laila in 1884. Layla’s larger 2025 category is female. Laila’s larger 2025 category is female. Laila led 2 decades and Layla led 6 decades among decades in which both spellings have a published total.

Inside 2016–2025, the widest combined gap was 5,110 records in 2021, and the closest year was 2016 (a gap of 4,349). Of the combined 2025 records for this pair (6,093), Layla is 87.6% and Laila is 12.4%.

2016–2025, count and rank

2016 belongs to Layla. Layla had 6,300 female records (rank #30); Laila had 1,951 female records (rank #164). The gap that year was 4,349 records. For 2017, compare the categories separately: Layla had 6,335 female records (rank #26) and 10 male records (rank #7,909); Laila had 1,751 female records (rank #173). Layla led 2017 by 4,594 published records (6,345 to 1,751), and the smaller spelling is Laila. Layla was the higher published spelling in 2018, with 6,512 female records (rank #27) against 1,620 female records (rank #182) for Laila. The 2019 national file shows Layla led 2019 by 5,067 published records (6,528 to 1,461). Read as exact spellings: Layla had 6,523 female records (rank #23) and 5 male records (rank #13,315); Laila had 1,461 female records (rank #210). 2020: Layla led 2020 by 4,925 published records (6,228 to 1,303). Layla and Laila stay separate rows; 6,228 and 1,303 are not a combined baby-name total. In 2021, Layla had 6,356 female records (rank #24) and 7 male records (rank #10,352); Laila had 1,253 female records (rank #243). Layla led 2021 by 5,110 published records (6,363 to 1,253). 2022 belongs to Layla. Layla had 6,096 female records (rank #29); Laila had 1,031 female records (rank #309). The gap that year was 5,065 records. For 2023, compare the categories separately: Layla had 5,703 female records (rank #30); Laila had 989 female records (rank #313). Layla led 2023 by 4,714 published records (5,703 to 989), and the smaller spelling is Laila. Layla was the higher published spelling in 2024, with 5,325 female records (rank #37) and 7 male records (rank #10,495) against 844 female records (rank #371) for Laila. The 2025 national file shows Layla led 2025 by 4,583 published records (5,338 to 755). Read as exact spellings: Layla had 5,338 female records (rank #36); Laila had 755 female records (rank #413).

Published national counts and ranks for each recorded-sex category. A dash means the file has no observation.
YearLayla female countLayla female rankLayla male countLayla male rankLaila female countLaila female rankLaila male countLaila male rank
20166,30030——1,951164——
20176,33526107,9091,751173——
20186,51227——1,620182——
20196,52323513,3151,461210——
20206,22824——1,303227——
20216,35624710,3521,253243——
20226,09629——1,031309——
20235,70330——989313——
20245,32537710,495844371——
20255,33836——755413——

Combined counts, 1880–2025

Each line adds the published female and male counts for that spelling. A gap is a year with no published observation, not a zero. Layla is the warm line and Laila is the cool line.

6,528188020251950: 7 combined published records1955: 7 combined published records1957: 5 combined published records1964: 7 combined published records1967: 10 combined published records1884: 7 combined published records1893: 5 combined published records1899: 5 combined published records1903: 6 combined published records
LaylaLaila

Which spelling led each decade

The 1880s total is one-sided: 7 published records for Laila, and no published 1880s count for Layla. The 1890s total is one-sided: 10 published records for Laila, and no published 1890s count for Layla. The 1900s total is one-sided: 17 published records for Laila, and no published 1900s count for Layla. The 1910s total is one-sided: 175 published records for Laila, and no published 1910s count for Layla. The 1920s total is one-sided: 177 published records for Laila, and no published 1920s count for Layla. The 1930s total is one-sided: 107 published records for Laila, and no published 1930s count for Layla. The 1940s total is one-sided: 89 published records for Laila, and no published 1940s count for Layla. Laila was the 1950s leader, 136 published records against 19 for Layla. The 1960s files give 24 published records to Layla and 220 to Laila, so Laila led the decade. Layla was the 1970s leader, 1,355 published records against 474 for Laila. The 1980s files give 1,052 published records to Layla and 694 to Laila, so Layla led the decade. Layla was the 1990s leader, 2,189 published records against 1,098 for Laila. The 2000s files give 26,246 published records to Layla and 14,457 to Laila, so Layla led the decade. Layla was the 2010s leader, 63,300 published records against 19,671 for Laila. The 2020s files give 35,060 published records to Layla and 6,175 to Laila, so Layla led the decade.

Top states in 2025

Layla’s highest 2025 state counts, combining published female and male rows where both exist, are California (624), Texas (539), New York (326), Florida (324), Illinois (204). Laila’s highest 2025 state counts, combining published female and male rows where both exist, are Texas (77), California (67), New York (62), Florida (56), North Carolina (38). California, Texas, New York are in the top states for both spellings. A state can rank differently for each spelling because the counts are not merged.