Continue → Overview
← All research

Gender Prediction API Benchmark 2026

On a fixed fixture of 4,610 labelled names across 25 countries, NameGender answered 94.30% of rows, was correct on 96.57% of answered rows, and returned a correct answer for 91.06% of all rows. The country and script tables below are generated from the published report.

Measured October 7, 2026 · fixed fixture · fuzzy matching enabled

Overall result

Labelled names
4,610
Coverage
94.30%
Accuracy when answered
96.57%
End-to-end accuracy
91.06%

These are NameGender's own numbers on the full fixture. The head-to-head comparison below uses a smaller, country-balanced sample of the same fixture, so its NameGender row will not match this one exactly. Whichever you read, run the same three measures on your own population before choosing a provider.

How NameGender compares

Every provider below answered the same names, with the same country hint, on the same day. A name that any provider failed to return at all — a network or quota error, not an unknown answer — was dropped from every provider's table, so all rows share one denominator. Unknown answers are each provider's own decision; no threshold is imposed on anyone.

Overall provider comparison on the shared fixture
Provider Names Coverage Answered accuracy End-to-end [95% CI] Confident errors
NamSor 991 100.00% 96.06% 96.06% [94.67–97.11] 1.31%
NameGender 991 94.75% 96.70% 91.62% [89.73–93.19] 1.31%
genderize.io 991 93.14% 97.83% 91.12% [89.19–92.74] 0.50%

Confident errors are wrong answers returned with a probability of 0.90 or higher — the mistakes a probability threshold cannot filter out for you. Where two confidence intervals overlap, the ranking between those two rows is not a result.

By writing system

An overall average hides where providers actually differ. The gaps between them are widest outside the Latin alphabet.

Script Provider Names Coverage End-to-end
arabic genderize.io 40 100.00% 100.00%
NamSor 40 100.00% 97.50%
NameGender 40 97.50% 97.50%
cyrillic NamSor 40 100.00% 100.00%
NameGender 40 100.00% 100.00%
genderize.io 40 97.50% 97.50%
greek NamSor 40 100.00% 90.00%
NameGender 40 82.50% 82.50%
genderize.io 40 82.50% 82.50%
han NamSor 77 100.00% 92.21%
NameGender 77 100.00% 90.91%
genderize.io 77 51.95% 51.95%
hangul NameGender 40 100.00% 90.00%
NamSor 40 100.00% 87.50%
genderize.io 40 97.50% 85.00%
hebrew NamSor 40 100.00% 95.00%
genderize.io 40 90.00% 87.50%
NameGender 40 72.50% 70.00%
kana NamSor 3 100.00% 100.00%
NameGender 3 100.00% 100.00%
genderize.io 3 100.00% 100.00%
latin genderize.io 671 99.85% 97.76%
NamSor 671 100.00% 97.32%
NameGender 671 98.66% 95.98%
thai NamSor 40 100.00% 92.50%
genderize.io 40 57.50% 57.50%
NameGender 40 40.00% 37.50%

Measured on 991 names shared by every provider. Answers were collected on different days: NameGender October 6, 2026; genderize.io September 18, 2026; NamSor September 18, 2026. Competitor answers are aggregated only: this page publishes no per-name result from another provider. Our own wrong answers are listed in the report file so the score can be checked against the fixture. Prices, limits and behaviour change; re-run the measurement before quoting it.

Which provider fits which job

If every row needs an answer, NamSor led this test: it answered 100.0% of the names and got 96.1% of all names right end to end. That is ahead of NameGender's 91.6%, and most of the difference comes from names NameGender left unknown rather than names it got wrong.

If a wrong answer costs more than a blank one, for example in a letter that addresses someone as Mr or Ms, look at confident errors: wrong answers given with 90% probability or more. genderize.io had the fewest, 0.5% of names, against 1.3% for NamSor and 1.3% for NameGender. Whatever you choose, set a probability threshold and fall back to a neutral greeting below it.

The choice matters most outside the Latin alphabet. These writing systems show a gap of ten points or more between the best and the weakest provider:

Writing system Names Best end-to-end Weakest end-to-end Gap
Thai 40 NamSor 92.5% NameGender 37.5% 55.0 pts
Chinese characters (Han) 77 NamSor 92.2% genderize.io 52.0% 40.3 pts
Hebrew 40 NamSor 95.0% NameGender 70.0% 25.0 pts

Each writing system has 40 to 300 names in this test, so a gap of a few points is within the noise. Gaps of ten points or more are not.

Beyond accuracy, NameGender returns a ready salutation in ten languages ("Sehr geehrte Frau Müller,", "Dear Ms. Johnson:"), the first and last name split apart, and the number of records behind each answer, so a methods section can report it. Those are features, not accuracy; the tables on this page are the accuracy. You can try them on your own list without an account.

Where NameGender gets it wrong

Of the 991 names in the comparison, NameGender missed 83: 52 left unknown and 31 answered with the wrong gender.

Unknown answers cluster in a few writing systems: Thai 24, Hebrew 11, Latin 9, Greek 7, Arabic 1. NameGender has no counted birth records for Thai or Hebrew names yet, so those answers rest on smaller name lists. If your list is mostly Thai or Hebrew, compare the writing-system table above before choosing a provider.

Wrong answers fall into two groups. About half are short East Asian given names (single Chinese or Japanese characters, Korean and Vietnamese syllables), which carry less gender information than a full name. Most of the rest are names whose gender depends on the country or the decade, such as Deniz in Turkey or Willie in the United States. 13 of the wrong answers came with 90% probability or more:

Name Country Label NameGender Probability
鹰 CN male female 95%
Pau ES female male 99%
Aki FI female male 95%
Taika FI female male 95%
Hira IN female male 95%
Luca NL male female 95%
Lauri NO male female 96%
Åne NO male female 100%
อรพรรณ TH female male 95%
Vân VN female male 95%
Lợi VN female male 95%
Dung VN female male 95%
Ngạn VN male female 95%

Labels come from the test set, which assigns one gender per name. Some of these names are given to both genders in practice; the table lists them as errors anyway.

Run the test yourself

The script below sends the published test names to the NameGender API, country by country, and prints coverage, answered accuracy and end-to-end accuracy. Point it at another provider's endpoint to compare on your own terms. It needs Python 3 and the requests package, and uses one credit per name.

import csv, io, os, requests
from collections import defaultdict

names_csv = requests.get("https://namegender.com/datasets/gender-api-benchmark-2026-names.csv").content.decode("utf-8-sig")
rows = list(csv.DictReader(io.StringIO(names_csv)))

by_country = defaultdict(list)
for row in rows:
    by_country[row["country"]].append(row)

answered = correct = 0
for country, group in by_country.items():
    for start in range(0, len(group), 100):
        batch = group[start:start + 100]
        reply = requests.post(
            "https://namegender.com/api/v1/gender/bulk",
            headers={"Authorization": f"Bearer {os.environ['NAMEGENDER_API_KEY']}"},
            json={"names": [r["name"] for r in batch], "country": country},
            timeout=60,
        ).json()
        for row, result in zip(batch, reply["results"]):
            if result["gender"]:
                answered += 1
                correct += result["gender"] == row["expected_gender"]

total = len(rows)
print(f"coverage {answered / total:.1%}")
print(f"answered accuracy {correct / answered:.1%}")
print(f"end-to-end {correct / total:.1%}")

A free account includes 100 credits a day. Researchers who want to rerun or extend the comparison can apply for research credits.

Turkish names: a separate 1,317-name test

The fixture above holds only 61 Turkish names, too few to say how NameGender does on a Turkish list. This test uses 1,317 first names of Turkish citizens recorded in Wikidata. NameGender answered 96.8% of them, 98.0% of those answers were right, and 94.9% of all names were answered correctly (95% interval 93.6–96.0%).

A name is labelled only when at least 3 people carry it and 95% or more of them share one gender. 247 names given to both genders were left out of the score rather than counted against anyone, for example Deniz (204 men, 192 women), Özgür (242 men, 19 women), Eren (120 men, 9 women), Derya (10 men, 110 women).

GroupNamesCoverageAnswered accuracyEnd-to-end
Names without Turkish letters92697.08%98.00%95.14%
Names with ç, ğ, ı, ö, ş or ü39196.16%98.14%94.37%
The same names typed without them (Ayse, Ozlem)35295.74%97.92%93.75%

1,249 answers came with 90% probability or more, and 99.0% of them were right. Of the 26 answers below 90%, 13 were right, which is what a lower probability is there to warn about.

The misses that matter most are the common names, ranked here by how many people in the test carry them: Gül (no answer), Fahir (no answer), Behiç (no answer), Tonguç (no answer), Kapicino (no answer), Pertev (no answer), Didar (answered male), Evin (answered male), Hulki (no answer), Nisan (answered male). Gül is the most common Turkish name NameGender misses.

Limits. Wikidata lists people notable enough for an encyclopedia, so older names and men (869 of 1,317 labelled names) are over-represented, and a customer list will look different. NameGender ran this test itself. Its data for Turkish names is not drawn from Wikidata, so the test does not grade the data against itself.

  • Turkish test names and results (CSV) — every name with its label, the number of people behind it, whether it uses Turkish letters and NameGender's answer (empty means unknown). CC BY 4.0; the Wikidata records are CC0.

Measured October 22, 2026 on the live engine · names built October 22, 2026 · fuzzy matching enabled

Results by country

The aggregate is not portable to every market. Israel and Thailand, for example, expose coverage gaps that the overall figure cannot show.

CountryNamesCoverageAnswered accuracyEnd-to-end
BR200100.00%99.50%99.50%
CN174100.00%89.66%89.66%
CZ160100.00%99.38%99.38%
DE20099.00%100.00%99.00%
DK200100.00%99.00%99.00%
EG20098.50%97.97%96.50%
ES194100.00%98.97%98.97%
FI20098.00%94.90%93.00%
FR189100.00%98.94%98.94%
GB200100.00%100.00%100.00%
GR20080.50%96.27%77.50%
IL20066.00%96.97%64.00%
IN20098.00%96.94%95.00%
IT20096.00%99.48%95.50%
JP51100.00%94.12%94.12%
KR200100.00%91.50%91.50%
NL200100.00%96.50%96.50%
NO20095.00%97.89%93.00%
PL197100.00%100.00%100.00%
RU19098.42%98.93%97.37%
SE200100.00%99.50%99.50%
TH20051.00%96.08%49.00%
TR6198.36%93.33%91.80%
US20099.50%92.46%92.00%
VN19488.66%79.65%70.62%

Results by writing system

ScriptNamesCoverageAnswered accuracyEnd-to-end
arabic20098.50%97.97%96.50%
cyrillic19098.42%98.93%97.37%
greek20080.50%96.27%77.50%
han222100.00%90.54%90.54%
hangul200100.00%91.50%91.50%
hebrew20066.00%96.97%64.00%
kana3100.00%100.00%100.00%
latin3,19598.37%97.10%95.52%
thai20051.00%96.08%49.00%

Data and citation

Two files let you check the vendor comparison above or rerun it against any service, including ours. The labelled names come from the MIT-licensed Faker library; the files are free to use under CC BY 4.0.

  • Test names (CSV) — every name in the comparison with its country, expected gender and writing system.
  • NameGender misses (CSV) — every name NameGender got wrong or left unanswered, with its answer and probability. An empty answer means unknown.

Genderize and Namsor answers were recorded as totals per group, not name by name, so only their aggregated results are published.

How to cite

NameGender (2026). Gender Prediction API Benchmark 2026. https://namegender.com/research/gender-api-benchmark-2026

@misc{namegender_benchmark_2026,
  author       = {NameGender},
  title        = {Gender Prediction API Benchmark 2026},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://namegender.com/research/gender-api-benchmark-2026}}
}

How to interpret this report

Coverage is the percentage of all fixture rows that received a male or female answer. Accuracy when answered removes unknown rows from its denominator. End-to-end accuracy counts every unknown or wrong row as unsuccessful.

The fixture is a product regression set, not proof that the same percentages apply to your customers. Some country samples are smaller than others, and the three-name Kana row is far too small for a general claim. Read the sample size beside every percentage.

For sampling rules, holdout measurements and commands, read the benchmark methodology.