🔍 Read the full analysis: What’s Behind Humanoid Robot Mentions In 52 Companies’ SEC Filings? on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get everyday essentials 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 163 filings from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, up from 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024. The review says only nine build, sell or own a humanoid maker; many others are suppliers, customers, blank-check companies or incidental mentions. The count measures filing language, not deployed robots or confirmed revenue.
Fifty-two companies mentioned “humanoid” in 163 SEC filings dated Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, according to a count published by ThorstenMeyerAI.com on Nov. 2. The review found that only nine of those companies build, sell or own a humanoid-robot maker, so the rising tally reflects a mix of business activity and market references—not 52 companies operating humanoid robots.
The report says its authors searched the SEC’s EDGAR full-text database for “humanoid” in 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits. It counted one company per SEC registrant number and one filing per accession number. The search returned 186 matching documents across 163 filings; Faraday Future accounted for 35 filings, according to the report.
The same method found 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024. The authors say Inc. had reported 47 companies in a Nov. 1 column, and attribute the difference as likely stemming from differences in filing forms and the date window. Their search for the exact phrase “humanoid robot” alone found 18 companies in 2026, because it did not capture every use of the broader word “humanoid.”
After reading the mentions, the report classified nine companies as builders, sellers or owners of a humanoid maker; 31 as suppliers, customers or companies citing the market; six as blank-check companies; and six as incidental mentions. Those categories are the authors’ interpretation of the filings, not an SEC classification. A broader search across all filing types returned 272 entities, the report said, largely because investment funds’ holdings lists included humanoid-robotics exchange-traded funds.
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 count offers a snapshot of how quickly humanoid robotics has entered corporate disclosure, but a mention is not evidence of commercial adoption. Filings can refer to a company’s own product, a supplier opportunity, a prospective customer, a market forecast or simply a person’s work history. Readers assessing the sector need to distinguish those uses from operating deployments and recorded sales.
The report illustrates the gap with Faraday Future. It says the company booked $853,000 in second-quarter robotics revenue, combining humanoid and four-legged robots. The company that bought its robot business expects more than 1,100 cumulative shipments, according to the report. Yet Faraday’s prospectus, issued seven weeks earlier, said its robot-sharing platform had two paid orders worth about $5,000 in total. Those figures refer to different measures and points in time; the report does not establish that the projected shipments have occurred.
Some supplier references may represent concrete commercial steps. The report cites Vishay Precision’s disclosure of a “vendor nomination letter” from its initial humanoid-robotics customer. Other mentions, it says, appear alongside broad lists of potential markets. The distinction matters to investors, workers and customers trying to judge whether the technology is moving beyond promotion and into measurable use.
Products Worth Considering
Amazon Kindle Scribe (32GB) with Premium Pen, Tungsten
Samsung 49-Inch Odyssey G93SC QD-OLED Curved Gaming Monitor
Bose QuietComfort True Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Count Was Built
The report says Inc.’s Nov. 1 column prompted its own search, but that the authors did not use Inc. as the source for their count. They ran the search on Nov. 2 using EDGAR, covering filings dated Jan. 1 to Nov. 1, 2026 and comparing the same filing forms in earlier years. The reported tally is therefore a count of mentions within a defined set of documents, not a count of companies across every possible SEC filing or every business operating in the field.
The categories show how broad the word’s use has become. The report names Tesla’s Optimus and Mobileye’s acquisition of Mentee Robotics among the companies directly connected to humanoid makers. It says six blank-check companies mentioned the sector, including Churchill Capital Corp XI, which is merging with Agility Robotics. Blank-check companies are formed to pursue acquisitions and do not necessarily have an operating business of their own. Other filings came from component suppliers and firms describing humanoids as a possible market.
Deployment evidence is also varied. The report says Agility Robotics reported nine customer facilities and 65,000 hours of operation. Tesla said Optimus production had begun in Fremont but, according to the report, did not give unit figures. These disclosures offer different levels of detail and should not be treated as equivalent measures of commercial scale.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— ThorstenMeyerAI.com report
What the Filing Count Cannot Show
The tally does not reveal how many robots are built, shipped or in regular use across the 52 companies. It also does not measure revenue attributable specifically to humanoids, the scale of customer commitments, or whether plans described in filings will be completed. The source report provides selected examples, but not a full company-by-company breakdown of results or deployment figures in the material provided.
The comparison with prior years is limited to the authors’ chosen forms, search term and dates. The report says the difference from Inc.’s 47-company count is likely due to form types and the date window, but does not establish the exact reason for each difference. Its categories are based on the authors’ reading of filings, and the source material does not include the underlying list of all 52 registrants or the full text of every filing.
Claims about anticipated shipments, market demand and future revenue remain distinct from results already reported. The report also does not provide enough detail to verify whether every planned deal or corporate transaction has closed, beyond the specific statements it summarizes.
Follow Filings and Deployment Data
The next useful evidence will be company disclosures that attach unit counts, customer commitments, operating hours and robotics-specific revenue to the broader language. Upcoming quarterly and annual filings may show whether the mentions turn into reported sales, completed transactions or expanded deployments. Readers should check the dates and definitions behind any shipment or revenue figures, particularly when a company combines humanoid robots with other robotics products.
The report does not identify a single next event that will resolve the question of commercial scale. Its count is a point-in-time review through Nov. 1, 2026. Further comparisons will depend on later filings and on whether companies report measurable results rather than market opportunities alone.
Key Questions
What does the figure of 52 companies represent?
It is ThorstenMeyerAI.com’s count of SEC registrants whose 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K or S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits, used the word “humanoid” from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026. The count does not mean all 52 companies make robots.
How many of the 52 companies were directly involved in making humanoid robots?
The report classified nine companies as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. It categorized the rest as suppliers or customers, blank-check companies, or companies with incidental mentions.
Why does the report’s count differ from Inc.’s 47?
The report says the gap is likely due to differences in filing forms and the date window. The source material does not establish the exact reason for the difference.
Does a filing mention prove that a company has deployed humanoid robots?
No. A filing can mention a potential market, supplier relationship, customer, planned transaction or incidental reference. Deployment needs separate evidence, such as disclosed customer facilities, operating hours or shipment figures.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
