🔍 Read the full analysis: 52 Companies Now Mention Humanoid Robots In SEC Filings. History Says: Read The Fine Print 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 counted 52 companies mentioning “humanoid” from January 1 through November 1, 2026, across 163 filings. The count is a measure of filing mentions, not robots in operation: the review classified only nine companies as builders, sellers or owners of a humanoid maker.
A review of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings counted 52 companies mentioning “humanoid” from January 1 through November 1, 2026, across 163 filings. The tally, published November 2 by ThorstenMeyerAI.com, is up from 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024, but the review says most of this year’s companies are not humanoid-robot makers.
The review says it searched the SEC’s EDGAR full-text system for “humanoid” in 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits. It counted one company for each SEC registrant number and one filing for each accession number. The search returned 186 matching documents within 163 filings. Faraday Future alone accounted for 35 filings, according to the review.
After reading the surrounding text, the authors classified nine companies as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. They categorized 31 as suppliers, customers or companies referring to the market; six as blank-check companies; and six as incidental mentions, such as a biography. These categories are the authors’ own reading of the filings, not SEC classifications.
The review says its results differ from an Inc. column published November 1, which reported 47 companies. It attributes the gap as likely related to differences in filing types and the date window. Searching only the exact phrase “humanoid robot,” rather than “humanoid,” returns 18 companies for 2026, the review says. Expanding the search to all form types raises the count to 272 entities, largely because investment funds’ holdings lists appear in results.
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 rising count shows that humanoid robotics is appearing more often in public-company disclosures, but it does not establish that commercial adoption is accelerating at the same pace. A company can mention the technology because it makes components, sees a possible customer market, is considering an acquisition, or includes the term in a risk discussion. A filing mention is not evidence of a sale, deployment or revenue.
That distinction matters to investors and readers tracking the industry. A supplier naming humanoid robots among several potential markets may be describing a sales opportunity rather than a business line with orders. By contrast, the review points to Vishay Precision’s August disclosure of a vendor nomination letter from an initial humanoid-robotics customer as a more concrete commercial step, while still not treating that letter as proof of substantial revenue.
The review also cites historical episodes as a caution about market narratives. It says research found companies adopting internet-related names in 1998 and 1999 earned about 74% abnormal returns around announcements, and describes a 2017 beverage-company blockchain pivot followed by a sharp share-price rise and an SEC insider-trading case. Those examples are context, not proof that current humanoid-related disclosures are misleading or that the same outcomes will recur.
Products Worth Considering
Bose QuietComfort Ultra Wireless Noise-Cancelling Headphones with Spatial Audio, Black
Logitech MX Brio Ultra HD 4K Webcam, Graphite
Jackery Explorer 2000 v2 Portable Power Station with Two 200W Solar Panels
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 2026 Count Was Built
The review says the search covers filings submitted between January 1 and November 1, 2026, compared with the same forms in earlier calendar years. The SEC forms included annual reports, quarterly reports, current reports and registration statements. Because 8-K exhibits can contain press releases and investor materials, a match does not necessarily appear in a company’s core financial discussion.
The authors’ categories illustrate how broad the results are. The list includes companies such as Tesla and Mobileye, which the review links to humanoid programs or acquisitions, alongside component suppliers and businesses describing the technology as a possible market. It also includes six blank-check companies, some seeking a transaction in humanoids or physical AI. The review notes that such companies do not have operating businesses of their own before a deal.
The source also describes evidence of activity at different stages. It says Agility Robotics reports nine customer facilities and 65,000 hours of operation, while Tesla says production of its Optimus robot has begun in Fremont without giving unit numbers. Those statements are reported by the companies, as summarized by the review; they do not establish comparable deployment scale or independently verify performance.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— ThorstenMeyerAI.com review
What the Count Cannot Establish
The count measures filings that match a search term, not the number of robots built, deployed or sold. It also depends on the chosen forms, dates and search wording. The review says that using all form types produces a much larger result because investment-fund holdings lists are included, illustrating how methodology affects the total.
It is not clear from the count alone how much revenue or future growth each company expects from humanoid robotics. The review’s category assignments are interpretive, and a mention can cover anything from a specific customer nomination to a passing reference. Company statements about production, shipments or customer facilities are not independently verified in the source material.
The review gives a specific example of the gap between targets and disclosed activity: Faraday Future’s robotics revenue in the second quarter was $853,000 for humanoids and four-legged robots combined, according to the source. The company that bought its robot business reportedly expects more than 1,100 cumulative shipments, while a prospectus filed seven weeks earlier described two paid orders worth about $5,000 for its robot-sharing platform. The source does not establish that these figures cover the same period or business scope, so they should not be treated as directly comparable.
Check Future Filings Against Results
The next useful evidence will come from subsequent filings and company disclosures: reported sales, paid orders, customer deployments, production volumes and costs. Those measures can show whether companies move from describing humanoids as a market opportunity to reporting an operating business. Any shipment or revenue target should be compared with results disclosed for a clearly stated period.
Readers can also reproduce the review’s count by searching EDGAR for “humanoid” across the specified forms and filing dates, while noting that search choices change the results. The review is a reading of public documents, not an investment recommendation. Until filings provide more consistent operating figures, the increase from six companies in 2024 to 52 through November 1, 2026, is best read as a rise in disclosure mentions—not as a measure of industry-wide robot adoption.
Key Questions
How many companies mentioned humanoids in 2026?
The review counted 52 companies in SEC filings dated January 1 through November 1, 2026. It found 163 filings containing the term.
Does every company in the count make humanoid robots?
No. The review classified nine companies as builders, sellers or owners of a humanoid maker. It placed 31 in supplier, customer or market-context categories, six among blank-check companies and six in an incidental-mention category.
Why is the count different from the 47 reported by Inc.?
The review says the difference is likely due to different filing types and date windows. Its own search covered 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits, through November 1.
Does the increase prove that humanoid robots are being widely deployed?
No. The tally measures mentions in regulatory filings, not robots in operation, revenue or orders. Deployment and sales need to be assessed from company-specific disclosures and other evidence.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
