🧠 Rarest MBTI Type: INFJ at 1.5% — All 16 Types Ranked by Rarity

📊 All 16 MBTI Types Ranked by Rarity

Rank 1 is the rarest type, rank 16 the most common. The figures are estimates, so exact numbers differ slightly between surveys and tests. Where these percentages come from.

❓ Rarest MBTI Type: Frequently Asked Questions

What is the rarest MBTI type?

INFJ is the rarest MBTI type at about 1.5% of the population. ENTJ (1.8%) and INTJ (2.1%) are the next rarest.

What is the most common MBTI type?

ISFJ is the most common MBTI type at 13.8%, followed by ESFJ (12.3%) and ISTJ (11.6%).

What is the rarest MBTI type for women and for men?

In the Myers & Briggs Foundation figures this page uses, the rarest types for women are INTJ and ENTJ, tied at 0.9% each, with INFJ third at 1.6%. For men the two rarest are INFJ at 1.2% and ENFJ at 1.6%.

Why is INFJ the rarest MBTI type?

INFJ combines Introversion, iNtuition, Feeling and Judging. Each preference stacks the odds, so this specific combination occurs in only about 1.5% of the population.

How can I find out my MBTI type?

Take the Avortas Personality Test to find your type and see how rare it is.

🔗 Related Guides

• Personality Test: find your MBTI type and how rare it is
• Rarest Personality Type: MBTI compared with other personality systems
• Rarest Blood Type
• Rarest Zodiac Sign
• All Rarity Guides

📍 Where These Percentages Actually Come From

Every ranking of MBTI types by rarity leads back to one source: the estimated type frequencies published by the Myers & Briggs Foundation. It is not a single study. The Foundation describes it as a compilation of MBTI results collected between 1972 and 2002, drawing on data banks held at the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, CPP Inc. — now The Myers-Briggs Company — and the Stanford Research Institute, pooled across respondents, decades and forms of the questionnaire. Competing sites quote figures differing only in the first decimal place because they are re-rounding that compilation, not measuring anyone new.

A compilation has no single sample size, so no honest margin of error can be attached to it. The closest thing to a real denominator is the standardisation sample behind the 1998 MBTI Manual: 3,009 American adults, 1,478 men and 1,531 women, weighted by gender and ethnicity to the 1990 US census. The figures also show their seams — add the sixteen percentages and the total comes to 100.3%, the signature of a rounded summary rather than a census.

🚻 Separate the Sexes and a Different Type Wins

The pooled ranking conceals a reversal. The same source breaks its figures out by sex: among men the two rarest types are INFJ at 1.2% and ENFJ at 1.6% — both Feeling types — while INTJ is unremarkable at 3.3%. Among women the bottom belongs to INTJ and ENTJ, tied at 0.9% each, with INFJ third at 1.6%. INTJ moves from ordinary to rarest depending on which column you read.

The common end mirrors it: ISFJ is 19.4% of women against 8.1% of men, while ISTJ is 16.4% of men against 6.9% of women. Thinking–Feeling is the scale that divides most sharply by sex here, and that asymmetry reorders much of the list. A rarest-type claim that does not say men or women discards the strongest signal in the numbers.

📉 The Bottom Three Places Are a Statistical Tie

Ranking sixteen categories needs more precision than a few thousand respondents can supply. Take the most generous reading — that the percentages reflect the 3,009-adult standardisation sample. Then 1.5% is about 45 people, and a rate that small carries a 95% interval of roughly 1.1% to 1.9%. ENTJ's 1.8% spans 1.3% to 2.3%, INTJ's 2.1% spans 1.6% to 2.6%. Test the gaps and INFJ is not significantly rarer than either; the first type it clearly beats is ENFJ at 2.5%, fourth from the bottom. So the bottom three ranks are a tie — and that is the optimistic margin, since a thirty-year pooled compilation is not one clean random draw.

Instability compounds the problem. Pittenger's 1993 critique in the Journal of Career Planning and Employment reported that with a retest interval as short as five weeks, as many as half of respondents are classified as a different type. McCrae and Costa's 1989 paper in the Journal of Personality, covering 267 men and 201 women, showed why: they found no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types, concluding that it measures four relatively independent dimensions instead. A cut line through a continuum hands a letter to people sitting nowhere near either pole.

🌐 The Free Test You Took Probably Wasn't the MBTI

Different figures usually mean a different questionnaire. 16Personalities, the best-known free option, administers the NERIS Type Explorer, which its own reference page states is not the MBTI. The two systems share the familiar four-letter codes, but the NERIS framework does not use Jungian cognitive function stacks. It also renames the scales — Sensing becomes Observant, Perceiving becomes Prospecting — and adds a fifth letter for Identity, Assertive or Turbulent, a confidence-and-stress dimension with no MBTI equivalent at all.

Sites publishing frequencies drawn from their own visitors are describing people who arrived by searching for a personality quiz: younger, more online, more introspective than average — exactly the profile you would expect to inflate Intuitive counts. The Foundation's figures put all eight Intuitive types together at roughly 27% of US adults, so a visitor-derived ranking reporting Intuitives as a majority is measuring its own traffic. Rarest in a thirty-year compilation of American test-takers and rarest among this week's quiz-takers are different claims.