🔍 Read the full analysis: Humanoid Robot Mentions Are Rising In SEC Filings—Read Carefully 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 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 count includes robot makers, suppliers, blank-check companies and incidental references; it does not show that 52 companies are building or deploying humanoid robots.
A review of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings found 52 companies mentioned humanoids in filings dated Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, but only nine were classified by the review as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. The count, published by ThorstenMeyerAI.com on Nov. 2, shows a rapid rise in references—not proof of widespread commercial deployment or a comparable rise in robot revenue.
The site said it searched the SEC’s EDGAR full-text database for the word “humanoid” in 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits. It counted 163 filings and 186 matching documents from 52 companies, using one count per SEC registrant and one per filing accession number. One company, Faraday Future, accounted for 35 filings in the search.
The review found mentions from 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024 using the same set of forms and a calendar-year comparison. The article said its total differs from Inc.’s previously reported figure of 47, likely because the searches used different form types or date windows. Searching the exact phrase “humanoid robot,” rather than the broader word, returned 18 companies for 2026, according to the site.
After reading the surrounding passages, the author classified 31 companies as suppliers, customers or market observers, six as blank-check companies, and six as making incidental mentions. The remaining nine were placed in a group building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. These categories reflect the author’s interpretation of the filings, not SEC classifications.
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 readers track how humanoid robotics is appearing in corporate disclosures, but a filing mention has limited meaning on its own. A chipmaker listing robots among possible growth markets is not reporting robot sales; a blank-check company describing a sector it hopes to enter is not an operating robotics business. Investors and customers need to distinguish a stated market opportunity from orders, revenue, production and deployed machines.
The distinction matters because public filings can include both promotional language and financial or operational details. The site’s review points to Faraday Future as an example: it said the company reported $853,000 in second-quarter robotics revenue, combining humanoid and four-legged robots. The review also said the company that bought its robot business expected more than 1,100 cumulative shipments, while a prospectus issued seven weeks earlier described two paid orders for its robot-sharing platform worth about $5,000 in total. Those figures refer to different statements and measures; they should not be treated as interchangeable evidence of completed shipments or sustained demand.
For readers following the sector, the filing trend is best understood as a signal of corporate attention, not a measure of adoption. The underlying disclosures may contain useful evidence, but each company’s business, wording and reported results need separate examination.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Keypad Programmable Macro Pad, Graphite
Ledger Nano Gen5 Crypto Wallet, Black
Apple MacBook Pro 16-inch (2021) with M1 Max, 64 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD – Space Grey
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Filing Count Was Built
ThorstenMeyerAI.com said an Inc. column published Nov. 1 prompted its own search, but the column was a tip, not the source of its count. The search covered filing dates from Jan. 1 to Nov. 1, 2026, and compared those results with filings from the same forms in earlier calendar years. The term searched was “humanoid,” which includes uses such as “humanoid robots” and “humanoid robotics.”
The form choices matter. Annual and quarterly reports, current reports and IPO or offering registration statements can include different kinds of disclosures, including exhibits such as press releases or investor materials. The site said a search across all form types returned 272 entities, largely because investment funds’ holdings lists included humanoid-robotics exchange-traded funds. It excluded those results from its 52-company total. The figure is therefore a defined search result, not a census of all companies discussing or working on humanoids.
The review cited a range of activity: Mobileye’s reported $637 million purchase of humanoid startup Mentee Robotics, Tesla’s statement that Optimus production had begun in Fremont, and Agility Robotics’ reported operations at nine customer facilities with 65,000 hours of operation. The site said Tesla did not provide unit numbers. These examples describe different stages and levels of evidence, from a disclosed acquisition to company-reported production or operating hours.
“We counted them ourselves, filing by filing.”
— ThorstenMeyerAI.com, describing its search
What the Mentions Cannot Establish
The count does not establish how many robots have been manufactured, delivered or put to work across the companies named. It also does not measure revenue attributable specifically to humanoids, the size of any order pipeline, or whether customer trials will become recurring commercial deployments. The site’s classifications are its own reading of filing text, and companies may describe similar activities differently.
The source also notes that its count and Inc.’s figure of 47 differ, but says the gap is likely related to form types and the date window; it does not provide a reconciliation company by company. The count ends on Nov. 1, 2026, so later filings are outside the reported period. No independent audit of the search or categorization is described in the supplied material.
What Future Filings May Show
Subsequent SEC filings can show whether companies move beyond mentioning humanoids to reporting specific orders, production numbers, deployments and segment revenue. Readers can also compare a company’s forward-looking statements with later financial results and disclosures about customers, costs and operating risks. For now, the 2026 count is a snapshot through Nov. 1, not evidence that the trend will continue or that the companies named will succeed commercially.
The source describes its work as a reading of public documents, not a view on any stock. This article reports that review and does not provide investment advice. Robotics companies and their securities can carry substantial uncertainty, and investors can lose money.
Key Questions
What does the figure of 52 companies represent?
It is ThorstenMeyerAI.com’s count of SEC registrants with at least one matching 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K or S-1 filing containing the word “humanoid” from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026. It is not a count of 52 robot makers.
How many of the 52 were classified as humanoid makers?
The review classified nine as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. It placed 31 in supplier, customer or market-reference categories, six among blank-check companies and six in an incidental-mention category.
Why is the total different from Inc.’s reported 47?
The source says the difference is likely due to the forms searched and the date window. It does not provide a company-by-company reconciliation, so the precise reason for every difference is not established in the material provided.
Does mentioning humanoids show that a company has robot sales?
No. A filing may mention humanoids as a possible market, a supplier opportunity, a planned business or an incidental reference. Readers need to check for specific disclosures on orders, revenue, production and deployment.
What evidence of real-world activity did the review cite?
The article cited Agility Robotics’ reported nine customer facilities and 65,000 operating hours, as well as Tesla’s statement that Optimus production had begun in Fremont. It said Tesla provided no unit numbers in the cited material.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
