| Frequency Comparisons | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Rank | Frequency % | Per million people | |
| United States | ||||
| United States (Current snapshot) | 186 | 91801 | 0 | 1 |
| United States (1880 census) | 14 | 81820 | 0 | 0 |
| Change since 1880 | +172 | -9981 | +N/A | +N/A |
| Other Countries | ||||
| Australia | 0 | 0 | ||
| United Kingdom | 0 | 0 | ||
| Top States for LOSSER by Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Total | Rank in State | Frequency % | Per million people |
| Utah | 71 | 4396 | 0.003 | 32 |
| Idaho | 17 | 12292 | 0.001 | 13 |
| Illinois | 17 | 82196 | 0.000 | 1 |
| Pennsylvania | 14 | 97920 | 0.000 | 1 |
| Wisconsin | 11 | 65208 | 0.000 | 2 |
| Top States for LOSSER by Frequency | ||||
| State | Total | Rank in State | Frequency % | Per million people |
| Utah | 71 | 4396 | 0.003 | 32 |
| Idaho | 17 | 12292 | 0.001 | 13 |
| Alaska | 4 | 28126 | 0.001 | 6 |
| Nevada | 6 | 50566 | 0.000 | 3 |
| Hawaii | 3 | 38967 | 0.000 | 2 |
'A figure of zero indicates that we don't have data for this name (usually because it's quite uncommon and our stats don't go down that far). It doesn't mean that there's no-one with that name at all!
For less common surnames, the figures get progressively less reliable the fewer holders of that name there are. This data is aggregated from several public lists, and some stats are interpolated from known values. The margin of error is well over 100% at the rarest end of the table!
For less common surnames, the frequency and "per million" values may be 0 even though there are people with that name. That's because they represent less than one in a million of the population, which ends up as 0 after rounding.
It's possible for a surname to gain in rank and/or total while being less common per million people (or vice versa) as there are now more surnames in the USA as a result of immigration. In mathematical terms, the tail has got longer, with a far larger number of less common surnames.
Figures for top states show firstly the states where most people called LOSSER live. This obviously tends to be biased towards the most populous states. The second set of figures show where people called LOSSER represent the biggest proportion of the population. So, in this case, there are more people called LOSSER in Utah than any other state, but you are more likely to find a LOSSER by picking someone at random in Utah than anywhere else.
Sorry, we don't have any origin and classification information for the LOSSER surname.
| Classification | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| White (Caucasian) | 177 | 95.16 |
| Asian/Pacific | Less than 100 | Insignificant |
| Black/African American | None reported | 0 |
| Mixed Race | Less than 100 | Insignificant |
| Native American/Alaskan | None reported | 0 |
| White (Hispanic) | Less than 100 | Insignificant |
Ethnic distribution data shows the number and percentage of people with the LOSSER surname who reported their ethnic background as being in these broad categories in the most recent national census.
LOSSER is a genuine surname, but it's an uncommon one. Did you possibly mean one of these instead?
Sorry, we don't have any information on the meaning of LOSSER.
The following names have similar spellings or pronunciations as LOSSER.
This does not necessarily imply a direct relationship between the names, but may indicate names that could be mistaken for this one when written down or misheard.
Matches are generated automatically by a combination of Soundex, Metaphone and Levenshtein matching.