🔍 Read the full analysis: What To Look For When 52 Companies Mention Humanoid Robots In SEC Filings on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
TL;DR
A review of SEC EDGAR filings found 52 companies mentioned “humanoid” in specified filings from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, compared with 17 in all of 2025 and six in 2024. The count includes suppliers, blank-check companies and passing references—not just companies building or deploying humanoid robots.
A review of selected U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings found 52 companies mentioning humanoids from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, up from 17 in all of 2025 and six in 2024, according to ThorstenMeyerAI.com. The tally tracks use of a term in filings, not confirmed robot deployments: the author classified only nine companies as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker.
The author says the count came from searches of the SEC’s EDGAR full-text database for “humanoid” in 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits. The 2026 search returned 186 matching documents across 163 filings and 52 companies, with one company counted per SEC registrant number. The same search method found 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024.
The figures are the author’s own document count, not an SEC statistic or an audit of robotics activity. ThorstenMeyerAI.com said its review followed an Inc. column published Nov. 1 that reported 47 companies. It attributed the difference as likely stemming from differences in filing types and date windows. Searching only for the exact phrase “humanoid robot,” rather than the broader word, returned 18 companies for 2026 in the author’s search.
Reading the surrounding text changed what the tally represented. The author categorized 31 companies as suppliers, customers or companies citing the market, and six as blank-check companies seeking deals. Another six mentions were incidental, such as references in a director’s biography. Faraday Future accounted for 35 filings by itself, showing how repeated filings from one registrant can add to the document total without adding companies.
Infographic 01 · The word is spreading
52 companies said “humanoid” in SEC filings this year
We ran the search ourselves: three times as many companies as in all of 2025, and almost nine times as many as in 2024.
Companies mentioning “humanoid”
10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, S-1 incl. amendments and exhibits, by filing year (2026: to 1 Nov)
The blockchain wave
Companies mentioning “blockchain” in the same forms
Mentions did not fall after the 2018 crypto crash. A rising count alone is not a bubble signal; the gap between words and business is.
How we counted
- Query: humanoid (catches “robot”, “robots”, “robotics”). The exact phrase “humanoid robot” alone: 18 companies.
- Forms: 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, S-1, each with amendments; every matching document, including exhibits.
- Period: filing dates 1 Jan to 1 Nov 2026; earlier years by calendar year.
- Counting: one company per SEC registrant number (CIK). Faraday Future alone: 35 of 163 filings.
- Inc. reported 47 companies. Likely a different form set or date window; same direction.
Source: SEC EDGAR full-text search, run 2 Nov 2026 (an all-forms search finds 272 entities, mostly investment funds listing humanoid-robotics ETFs; excluded). Tip: Inc., 1 Nov 2026.
Powered by Thorsten Meyer AI
Why Filing Mentions Need Scrutiny
The rise in mentions can indicate that humanoid robotics is becoming a subject companies discuss with investors, but it cannot by itself establish that the market is generating sales or that robots are working at scale. A supplier naming humanoids as a possible growth market is making a different disclosure from a manufacturer reporting customer deployments or revenue. The categories in this review make that distinction central: most companies were not classified as builders, sellers or owners of a humanoid maker.
That matters to readers because SEC filings combine promotional context with financial and risk disclosures. The author’s examples show why the surrounding detail is more informative than a keyword count. Faraday Future’s robot business recorded $853,000 in robotics revenue in the second quarter, combining humanoid and four-legged robots. The company that acquired the business expected more than 1,100 cumulative shipments, while its own prospectus seven weeks earlier described two paid orders for its robot-sharing platform worth about $5,000 in total. These figures refer to different measures and should not be treated as equivalent evidence of sustained demand.
The tally may help identify companies for further examination, but it does not establish investment value, commercial viability or deceptive conduct. The source explicitly describes the work as a reading of public documents, not an assessment of any stock.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation, Dewdrop Mint
LG UltraGear 34GX90SA-W 34-inch WQHD Curved OLED Gaming Monitor
Bose SoundLink Plus Portable Bluetooth Speaker, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Filing Count Was Built
The search covered filings dated from Jan. 1 to Nov. 1, 2026 and compared the same filing types in earlier calendar years. The author counted one filing per accession number, regardless of how many documents it contained. That choice matters because 8-K exhibits can include materials such as press releases or investor presentations, while an annual or quarterly report serves a different purpose.
The author said a search across all SEC form types produced 272 entities, largely because investment-fund holdings lists can include humanoid-robotics exchange-traded funds. Those entities were excluded from the reported count. The source also notes that exact-phrase searching produces a smaller result because the search term “humanoid” captures variants such as “humanoid robotics.”
Examples in the source illustrate the range of disclosures. The review cited Agility Robotics as reporting nine customer facilities and 65,000 hours of operation. Tesla said Optimus production had begun in Fremont but, according to the source, did not give unit numbers. Supplier Vishay Precision reported a vendor nomination letter from an initial humanoid-robotics customer. These statements describe different stages of activity and are not directly comparable.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— ThorstenMeyerAI.com, describing its filing review
What the Count Cannot Establish
The tally does not independently verify the claims companies make in their filings, nor does it establish how many robots have been sold, how frequently they operate, or whether deployments are profitable. The source provides selected examples, not comparable operating data for all 52 companies. It is also not clear from the material whether each company’s mention reflected an active business plan, a customer relationship, market research or a passing reference beyond the author’s classification.
The comparison with Inc.’s 47-company figure is not a direct match: the source says differences in forms searched and the cutoff date likely explain the gap, but does not provide a company-by-company reconciliation. The source’s classifications are its own reading of filing language, rather than categories assigned by the SEC.
What to Check in Later Filings
Readers assessing future disclosures can look for specifics that go beyond the word “humanoid”: reported revenue, paid orders, shipment totals, named customers, operating hours and the number of facilities using a robot. They can also compare those statements with risk disclosures and later filings to see whether projected business has turned into reported activity. The figures should be checked with their time period and definition intact; cumulative shipments, current paid orders and quarterly revenue measure different things.
The next useful comparison would be an updated count using the same EDGAR search term, filing forms, date window and counting rules, alongside changes in company-level disclosures. Until such evidence is available, the 2026 tally documents growing use of a term in filings, not the scale or financial performance of the humanoid-robotics industry.
Key Questions
What does the 52-company figure measure?
It counts SEC registrants mentioning “humanoid” in 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K or S-1 filings dated Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, according to ThorstenMeyerAI.com. It is not a count of robot makers or deployed robots.
Why did another report give a count of 47?
ThorstenMeyerAI.com said the difference from Inc.’s 47-company figure likely reflects different filing types and date windows. The source does not include a company-by-company reconciliation.
How many of the companies were classified as directly involved in making humanoids?
The author classified nine of the 52 as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. The remaining mentions included suppliers, customers, blank-check companies and incidental references.
Does the increase prove the industry is growing commercially?
No. The count shows more companies mentioned the term in the selected filings. It does not establish sales growth, profitable deployments or the number of robots operating in workplaces.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
