🔍 Read the full analysis: What History Can Tell Us About Humanoid Robots In SEC Filings on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Prime made for students and young adults
- Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
- Prime Video and Amazon Music included
- Member-only deals
TL;DR
A filing-by-filing review by ThorstenMeyerAI.com found 52 companies mentioned humanoid robots in 163 SEC filings dated Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, up from 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024. The count includes manufacturers, suppliers, customers, blank-check firms and passing references, so it does not show how many robots are being built or sold.
A filing-by-filing review of U.S. securities disclosures found 52 companies mentioned humanoid robots in 163 SEC filings from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, compared with 17 companies in all of 2025 and six in 2024. The increase marks growing corporate attention to the sector, but the review found that most mentions do not mean a company makes or operates humanoid robots.
ThorstenMeyerAI.com said 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 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. The review says it was conducted on Nov. 2 and covers filings dated through Nov. 1.
The publication classified nine companies as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. It sorted 31 as suppliers, customers or companies citing the market, six as blank-check firms, and six as incidental mentions. Those categories reflect the publication’s reading of the filing text, not an SEC classification. A broader search across all filing types returned 272 entities, largely because investment funds’ holdings lists included humanoid-robotics funds, the review said.
The filings cited in the review illustrate the gap between a market reference and commercial activity. Faraday Future reported $853,000 in second-quarter robotics revenue, combining humanoids and four-legged robots. Separately, the review said the company that bought Faraday’s robot business expects more than 1,100 cumulative shipments; a prospectus filed seven weeks earlier had described two paid orders for its robot-sharing platform worth about $5,000 in total. These figures concern different disclosures and measures, and do not establish the number of humanoids delivered.
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 can help investors, workers and suppliers track how quickly companies are invoking humanoid robotics, but it is not a measure of deployment. A company may mention the technology as a possible customer market, a component opportunity, a risk or a strategic ambition. Treating all mentions as evidence of a functioning robot business would blur materially different situations.
That distinction matters because public filings are used to assess businesses and risks. The review notes that suppliers can provide specific evidence of commercial traction: Vishay Precision, for example, reported an “vendor nomination letter” from its initial humanoid-robotics customer in August. By contrast, a passing reference alongside drones, data centers and satellites may indicate market positioning without identifying orders or revenue. Filings offer a way to check promotional language against disclosed business details, though they do not resolve every question about a company’s prospects.
The review also points to real but limited deployment examples. Agility Robotics reported nine customer facilities and 65,000 hours of operation, while Tesla said Optimus production had begun in Fremont without giving unit numbers, according to the source. Those disclosures are not directly comparable: one describes facilities and operating hours, while the other provides a production-start statement without a quantity.
Popular right now
Vitamix Propel Series 750 Professional-Grade Blender, 4 Programs, Black
Roborock H60 Ultra-B Cordless Stick Vacuum Cleaner
Jura E6 Automatic Espresso Machine, Piano Black (15622)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 2026 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 said that column prompted its own search; it did not use Inc.’s count as its source. The two tallies differ, and the review said likely reasons include filing types and the date window. Its own result used four filing forms and ran through Nov. 1, 2026.
The search term was “humanoid,” which captures uses such as “humanoid robot,” “humanoid robots” and “humanoid robotics.” The source said an exact search for the singular phrase “humanoid robot” alone found 18 companies this year, because that search does not combine singular and plural wording. Results also depend on which filing types and dates are included, so counts from different searches should not be treated as interchangeable.
The publication used earlier corporate trends as cautionary context. It cited research reporting abnormal returns of about 74% around dot-com name-change announcements in 1998 and 1999, and a 2017 beverage-company blockchain pivot that rose more than 380% in a day before the company became the subject of an SEC insider-trading case. It also cited SEC “AI washing” cases in 2024 and 2025, including one involving a start-up that promised a humanoid home robot. These episodes offer comparisons, not proof that current humanoid disclosures are misleading or that the sector will follow the same path.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— ThorstenMeyerAI.com review
What the Filing Count Cannot Show
The review is a count of references in selected public filings, not an audit of every company’s robot activity. It does not establish how many humanoid robots have shipped, how many are in regular use, or how much revenue comes specifically from humanoids. Those details are absent or not separated in some of the disclosures cited.
Some figures also describe expectations rather than completed sales. The buyer’s expectation of more than 1,100 cumulative shipments is not the same as a confirmed shipment total, and the review’s account of two paid orders concerns a robot-sharing platform rather than a stated count of robot deliveries. The source does not give a full breakdown of the buyer’s expected shipments or reconcile that expectation with the earlier prospectus.
The review’s category assignments depend on its interpretation of each mention, and its comparisons with Inc. use different counts. The available material does not identify the precise contribution of each methodological difference. Nor does it show whether the increased number of mentions will lead to sustained orders, scaled production or profitable operations.
Track Orders, Revenue and Deployment
The next useful evidence will come from later filings and company disclosures that separate humanoid-specific revenue, paid orders, shipments and operating deployments from broader robotics activity. Investors and readers can also compare stated production plans with reported unit counts and customer facilities over time.
For future counts, the search window, filing forms and search term should be stated alongside the result. ThorstenMeyerAI.com’s tally covers filings through Nov. 1, 2026; subsequent filings may change the total. Until companies disclose more comparable operating data, the number of mentions is best read as a signal of corporate attention, not a count of commercial humanoid-robot businesses.
Key Questions
How many companies mentioned humanoid robots in the 2026 review?
ThorstenMeyerAI.com counted 52 companies in 163 SEC filings dated Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026. Its search covered 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits.
Does every company in the count make humanoid robots?
No. The review classified nine companies as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. It classified 31 as suppliers, customers or market references, six as blank-check firms, and six as incidental mentions.
Why is the count different from Inc.’s figure?
Inc. reported 47 companies in a Nov. 1 column. ThorstenMeyerAI.com said the difference likely reflects filing types and the date window, but the supplied account does not quantify the effect of each factor.
Do the filings show how many humanoid robots have been sold?
No. The review does not provide an industry-wide shipment total. It says some disclosures report other measures, such as combined robotics revenue or customer facilities, while Tesla’s stated production start came without unit numbers.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
