🔍 Read the full analysis: 52 Companies Now Mention Humanoid Robots In SEC Filings: A Guide To The Disclosures on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get hardware and tech 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 filings dated Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, counted 52 companies mentioning “humanoid,” across 163 filings. The count tracks references, not robot deployments or commercial success: only nine companies were classified as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker.
A review of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings found 52 companies mentioned “humanoid” in filings dated from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, up from 17 companies in all of 2025 and six in 2024. The review, published by ThorstenMeyerAI.com on Nov. 2, counted 163 filings and cautioned that a mention does not establish that a company makes or operates humanoid robots.
The review searched SEC EDGAR for the word “humanoid” in 10-K annual reports, 10-Q quarterly reports, 8-K current reports and S-1 registration statements, including amendments and exhibits. It counted one company per SEC registrant number and one filing per accession number, finding 186 matching documents across 163 filings. Faraday Future accounted for 35 filings, according to the review.
After reading the surrounding text, the author classified nine companies as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. Another 31 were suppliers, customers or companies citing the market; six were blank-check companies; and six mentioned the term incidentally, such as in a director’s biography. Those categories reflect the author’s interpretation of the filings, rather than an SEC classification.
The search method affects the total. The review says an exact-phrase search for “humanoid robot” alone found 18 companies, while searching all SEC form types produced 272 entities, largely because investment funds’ holdings lists included humanoid-robotics funds. The article says its selected forms and date range account for a difference from Inc.’s Nov. 1 report, which counted 47 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
A Mention Is Not a Deployment
The count shows that humanoids are appearing more often in public-company disclosures, but it cannot by itself show how quickly the industry is growing or whether the companies will earn revenue from the technology. A manufacturer developing a robot, a chip supplier listing a possible market and a shell company seeking an acquisition may all use the same word for very different reasons.
That distinction matters to readers evaluating corporate claims. A filing can provide context beyond a press release, including risk factors, deal terms and reported revenue. But even a concrete supplier reference is not the same as a large, recurring business. The review cites Vishay Precision’s report of a “vendor nomination letter from our initial humanoid robotics customer” as a specific commercial step, while noting that a market list placing humanoids beside drones or data centers does not establish sales.
The underlying technology also remains at different stages of use. The source says Agility Robotics reports nine customer facilities and 65,000 operating hours; Tesla says Optimus production has begun in Fremont but does not provide unit numbers. These company-reported details offer more evidence of activity than a bare mention, though they do not settle questions about scale, economics or long-term performance.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Air 13-inch with M5 chip, 16GB memory, 1TB SSD, and 12MP Center Stage camera (Midnight)
Apple MacBook Pro 14 2021 with M1 Max, 64GB RAM, 2TB SSD, Silver
Ledger Nano Gen5 Crypto Wallet, Black
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Filing Count Was Built
The review followed an Inc. column published Nov. 1 with the headline “47 Companies Are Mentioning Humanoid Robots in SEC Filings. History Says That’s a Red Flag.” ThorstenMeyerAI.com says that report prompted its own search; it did not use Inc.’s count as its data source. Its search covered filings dated Jan. 1 to Nov. 1, 2026 and compared the same selected forms with earlier calendar years.
The reported increase is a count of companies with at least one match, not a measure of robot output, investment or revenue. The author’s breakdown includes Mobileye, which the source says bought Israeli startup Mentee Robotics for $637 million, and Intel, which disclosed the deal. It also names Tesla and Faraday Future among companies connected directly to humanoids. Six blank-check firms were included because their filings described plans or mergers involving the sector; such shells do not necessarily have operating businesses of their own.
The article also places the current wave alongside earlier corporate trends, including dot-com-era name changes and blockchain pivots. Those examples are historical comparisons, not proof that humanoid-related disclosures will lead to similar market outcomes. The source notes that the SEC brought AI-washing cases in 2024 and 2025, including one involving a startup that promised a humanoid home robot; it does not claim that every company in the current count has made misleading statements.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— ThorstenMeyerAI.com review
What the Count Cannot Establish
The count does not establish how many robots have been built, shipped or put into regular service by the 52 companies. It also does not measure revenue across the group or verify that every mention represents a funded project. The review’s categories are based on its reading of filing language, and some companies may fit more than one description.
Several company-specific figures in the source are also limited in scope. Faraday Future reported $853,000 in second-quarter robotics revenue for humanoids and four-legged robots combined, but the source does not give a breakdown between those product types. The review says the company that bought its robot business expects more than 1,100 cumulative shipments, while a prospectus filed seven weeks earlier described two paid orders totaling about $5,000 for a robot-sharing platform. Those figures refer to different statements and time points; the source does not reconcile them or establish later delivery results.
Other open questions include the number of Optimus units Tesla has produced, the commercial returns from deployments, and whether supplier mentions will turn into orders. The filing count is current only through Nov. 1, 2026, and additional disclosures could change it.
Track Filings and Deployment Evidence
The next useful updates will come from new company filings and disclosures that attach numbers to plans: shipments, paid orders, customer deployments, operating hours and revenue. For the companies named in the review, future 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K filings may clarify whether projects have moved beyond development, market references or acquisition plans.
Readers can also reproduce the reported count using the review’s stated EDGAR search terms, filing types, date range and registrant-based counting method. Any comparison with later totals should use the same scope; a broader search or a different date window can produce a different number. The source describes its work as a reading of public documents, not an assessment of any stock, and the figures should not be treated as investment advice.
Key Questions
What does the figure of 52 companies count?
It counts SEC registrants with at least one match for “humanoid” in selected 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K or S-1 filings dated Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, including amendments and exhibits. It does not count robots or deployments.
Why is this count higher than Inc.’s 47?
ThorstenMeyerAI.com says its own search used specified forms and a date window through Nov. 1. It attributes the difference as likely related to filing types and timing, but does not provide a direct, company-by-company reconciliation with Inc.’s total.
How many companies in the review make or own humanoid robots?
The review classified nine of the 52 as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. The other entries included suppliers, customers, blank-check companies and incidental mentions, based on the author’s reading of the filings.
Does a filing mention prove a company has a commercial robot business?
No. A mention may refer to a product under development, a potential customer market, a supplier opportunity, an acquisition plan or a passing reference. Evidence such as reported orders, shipments, operating hours and revenue is more specific, but still needs to be read in its stated context.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
