Report an error
Popularity of the first name Layla correlates with...
| Variable | Correlation | Years | Has img? |
| Organic Food Sales Volume in the United States | r=1 | 13yrs | No |
| Yogurt consumption | r=0.98 | 32yrs | No |
| Electricity generation in Gambia | r=0.97 | 42yrs | No |
| The number of registered nurses in Ohio | r=0.97 | 18yrs | No |
| GMO use in cotton | r=0.97 | 23yrs | No |
| The number of coaches and scouts in North Carolina | r=0.97 | 20yrs | No |
| Number of internet users | r=0.96 | 24yrs | No |
| The number of registered nurses in South Carolina | r=0.96 | 18yrs | No |
| The number of network systems administrators in South Dakota | r=0.96 | 18yrs | No |
| The price of gold | r=0.92 | 40yrs | No |
| Google searches for 'i cant even' | r=0.92 | 19yrs | No |
| Amount spent on Pet Gifts on Valentine's Day in the US | r=0.91 | 9yrs | No |
Popularity of the first name Layla also correlates with...
<< Back to discover a correlation
You caught me! While it would be intuitive to sort only by "correlation," I have a big, weird database. If I sort only by correlation, often all the top results are from some one or two very large datasets (like the weather or labor statistics), and it overwhelms the page.
I can't show you *all* the correlations, because my database would get too large and this page would take a very long time to load. Instead I opt to show you a subset, and I sort them by a magic system score. It starts with the correlation, but penalizes variables that repeat from the same dataset. (It also gives a bonus to variables I happen to find interesting.)