🔍 Read the full analysis: Can SEC Filings Clarify What 52 Companies Mean By Humanoid Robots? 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 found 52 companies used the word “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, customers and blank-check companies, so it does not show that 52 companies build or operate humanoid robots.
A review of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings found that 52 companies mentioned “humanoid” in documents filed from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, compared with 17 companies in all of 2025 and six in 2024. The count signals growing attention to the sector, but the filings describe very different relationships: only nine companies in the review build, sell or own a humanoid-robot maker, according to the researchers’ classification.
The review, published Nov. 2 by ThorstenMeyerAI.com, says its authors searched the SEC’s EDGAR full-text database 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. They counted 163 filings containing the term across 52 company registrants; those filings included 186 matching documents. The search period ran through Nov. 1, 2026.
The authors classified nine companies as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. They placed 31 in a broader group of suppliers, customers or companies citing the market, and six among blank-check companies seeking acquisitions. Another six mentioned humanoids only in passing, such as in a biography. These categories reflect the authors’ reading of the filings, not a formal SEC designation or an independent measure of commercial activity.
The article says Faraday Future accounted for 35 filings in the count. It also reports that Faraday Future’s robot business recorded $853,000 in second-quarter robotics revenue from humanoid and four-legged robots combined. The article describes a separate prospectus, issued seven weeks before a subsequent development, as reporting two paid orders worth about $5,000 for its robot-sharing platform. Those figures concern different aspects of the business and do not establish how many humanoid robots were 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
What the Filing Count Can Show
The increase matters because company filings are formal public documents where businesses disclose risks, operations and financial information. A rising number of references can show that humanoid robotics is entering more corporate discussions, including among suppliers and potential customers. It can also help readers identify companies making claims about exposure to the market.
But a keyword count is not a count of robots, sales or active deployments. The review groups together companies with direct robotics operations and those that mention humanoids as one possible market for components or services. Some filings may refer to a proposed acquisition, a market opportunity or a risk rather than an existing product or customer contract. The number alone cannot establish revenue, production scale or demand.
That distinction is relevant to investors and other readers trying to judge how much of a company’s business depends on humanoid robots. A supplier naming humanoids alongside other growth areas is not necessarily reporting robot-related sales. Conversely, a specific customer nomination or operating-hours disclosure can offer more concrete evidence, though it still does not answer every question about profitability or scale. This article is a reading of public documents, not investment advice; robotics-related companies and securities can carry substantial risk, including the possibility of loss.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Keypad Programmable Macro Pad, Graphite
Apple MacBook Pro 16-inch (2021) with M1 Max, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD
LG UltraGear 45GX900A-B 45-Inch Curved OLED Gaming Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the SEC Search Was Counted
The authors say they conducted their own search after Inc. published a Nov. 1 column reporting that 47 companies had mentioned humanoid robots in SEC filings. They say their result differs in part because of the forms searched and the date window; the two counts are not presented as identical searches. Their method counted one company per SEC registrant number and one filing per accession number, regardless of how many documents the filing contained.
The search used “humanoid” rather than only “humanoid robot.” The authors say searching the exact phrase “humanoid robot” alone returned 18 companies for the year because the phrase search did not capture all singular and plural wording. Expanding the search to all SEC form types produced 272 entities, they report, largely because investment-fund holdings lists included humanoid-robotics exchange-traded funds. The published 52-company count excludes those results by limiting the search to the specified forms.
The source gives examples of the varied evidence in filings. It says Agility Robotics reported nine customer facilities and 65,000 hours of operation, while Tesla said production of its Optimus robot had begun in Fremont but did not provide unit numbers. It also says supplier Vishay Precision reported receiving a vendor nomination letter from its initial humanoid-robotics customer. These are company disclosures as summarized by the article, and they do not make the companies’ business positions interchangeable.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— ThorstenMeyerAI.com, describing its filing review
What the Mentions Do Not Prove
The review does not provide a standardized measure of revenue or robot shipments for all 52 companies. It also does not establish whether each mention reflects a current commercial relationship, a planned project, a risk disclosure or general market commentary. The authors’ categories are based on their interpretation of filing language, and some companies may fit more than one description.
The source reports that Tesla said Optimus production had begun but gave no unit total. It describes Faraday Future’s robotics revenue as combining humanoid and four-legged robots, so the amount cannot be assigned to humanoids alone. Nor does a customer-facility or operating-hours figure by itself disclose utilization, unit economics or profitability. The review is dated Nov. 2 and covers filings only through Nov. 1, so later filings are outside its count.
Check Future Filings for Evidence
The immediate next step for readers is to examine later filings and compare claims with reported operating results: named customer contracts, shipment figures, robotics-specific revenue, production quantities and disclosed deployment hours. Those details can clarify whether a mention marks a concrete business activity or a market reference.
The authors do not identify a scheduled follow-up count or a date when all companies will report comparable data. The SEC filing total may change as new documents are submitted, and the source’s figures should be read as a dated search rather than a continuing official registry of humanoid-robot companies.
Key Questions
What did the SEC filing review find?
It found 52 companies using the word “humanoid” in 163 SEC filings dated Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026. The review counted 17 companies in all of 2025 and six in 2024 using its stated search method.
Are all 52 companies making humanoid robots?
No. The authors classified nine as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. The rest included suppliers, customers, blank-check companies and firms that mentioned the term in passing.
How did the authors conduct the search?
They searched SEC EDGAR for “humanoid” in 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits, with filing dates from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026. They counted companies by SEC registrant number.
Does the count show that humanoid robots are generating significant sales?
No. A filing mention does not prove sales, shipments or deployment. The article cites some company-specific operating and revenue disclosures, but the figures are not comparable across all 52 companies.
Why does the review differ from the earlier count of 47 companies?
The article says the difference is likely related to the filing types searched and the date window. The authors conducted a separate search and describe their own form and counting rules.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
