🔍 Read the full analysis: 52 Companies Mention Humanoid Robots: The SEC Filing Details Matter on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get smart everyday buys 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 mentioning humanoid robots from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, across 163 filings. The count tracks growing use of the term, not 52 companies deploying robots: only nine were classified by the source as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker.
A review of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings found 52 companies mentioned humanoid robots in filings submitted from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, according to ThorstenMeyerAI.com. The review counted 163 filings, but its author says only nine companies build, sell or own a humanoid maker, underscoring that a filing mention does not establish a commercial robot business or deployment.
The report says it searched the SEC’s EDGAR full-text database 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 from 52 companies. Faraday Future accounted for 35 filings, the report says.
The same search method found 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024. Those are raw counts, not a measure of robot sales, deployments or revenue. ThorstenMeyerAI.com says Inc. had reported 47 companies in a Nov. 1 column; it attributes the difference as likely related to the forms and date range used. The report’s search through Nov. 1 and its inclusion of multiple filing types define its own count.
After reviewing the contexts of the mentions, the report classified nine companies as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker; 31 as suppliers, customers or companies discussing the market; six as blank-check companies; and six as incidental mentions. Those categories reflect the author’s reading, not an SEC classification. The source says searching all form types would return 272 entities, largely because funds’ holdings lists mention humanoid-related investments; it excluded those from its main count.
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 count offers a snapshot of how widely the term is appearing in corporate disclosures, but it should not be read as evidence that 52 companies have robots in operation. A supplier naming humanoids as a possible growth market is in a different position from a company making robots, and both differ from a blank-check company seeking a future acquisition.
That distinction matters to readers tracking the industry because disclosure language can describe aspiration, customer interest or business exposure without showing material revenue. The report points to supplier Vishay Precision’s disclosure of a “vendor nomination letter from our initial humanoid robotics customer” as a more specific commercial step than a general market reference. Even that statement does not, by itself, establish shipment volume or meaningful income.
The source also cites examples of gaps between promotional expectations and disclosed activity. Faraday Future reported $853,000 in second-quarter robotics revenue from humanoids and four-legged robots combined, according to the report. 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 for a robot-sharing platform totaling about $5,000. These figures have different scopes and refer to different disclosures; they do not establish future performance.
Products Worth Considering
LG UltraGear 34GX90SA-W 34-inch WQHD Curved OLED Gaming Monitor
Logitech MX Brio Ultra HD 4K Webcam, Graphite
HP OfficeJet 250 Wireless Mobile All-in-One Inkjet Printer
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the SEC Search Was Counted
The report says the search term was the single word “humanoid”, which captures variations such as “humanoid robot,” “humanoid robots” and “humanoid robotics.” Searching only the exact phrase “humanoid robot” returned 18 companies for 2026, it says, because that narrower query does not combine singular and plural forms. The main comparison used the same four form types across the periods examined.
Examples in the report show why the wording around a mention matters. It identifies Tesla’s Optimus, Mobileye’s $637 million purchase of Mentee Robotics, and a proposed merger between Churchill Capital Corp XI and Agility Robotics among the companies or transactions connected to humanoid makers. Other filings cited humanoids as possible demand for chips, sensors, magnets or network services. The report says some blank-check companies simply described an interest in acquiring a business in humanoids or physical AI.
The source also points to operating evidence that is more concrete than a passing mention. It says Agility Robotics reports nine customer facilities and 65,000 hours of operation. Tesla, according to the report, says Optimus production has begun in Fremont but does not provide unit figures. Those company statements are attributed in the source; the filing-count exercise itself does not independently verify operating performance.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— ThorstenMeyerAI.com, describing the filing review
What the Mentions Do Not Establish
The search does not show how much revenue the 52 companies earn from humanoids, how many robots they have delivered, or whether market references will lead to contracts. The report’s categories are based on its interpretation of filing language, and the count depends on its chosen query, filing types, date range and company-counting method. A different scope can produce a different total.
It is also unclear from the supplied material how many of the filings discuss active programs with funded milestones, rather than potential markets or future plans. The report gives examples and several company figures, but those do not provide a comparable, company-by-company account of sales or operating results. Its broader historical comparisons to dot-com and blockchain-era market activity are context, not evidence that the current filings will lead to similar outcomes.
Read Future Filings for Evidence
The next useful indicators will be disclosures that connect humanoid programs to orders, delivered units, operating hours, customer sites and reported revenue. Later quarterly and annual filings may clarify whether references to the market have become funded projects or material business activity. Until then, the 52-company figure is best understood as a documented count of mentions through Nov. 1, 2026, rather than a tally of active humanoid deployments.
ThorstenMeyerAI.com describes the report as a reading of public documents, not a view on any stock. Its figures and company classifications should be read as the author’s findings, with financial results treated as historical disclosures rather than forecasts or guarantees.
Key Questions
What does the figure of 52 companies count?
It counts SEC registrants whose 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K or S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits, contained the word “humanoid” between Jan. 1 and Nov. 1, 2026, according to ThorstenMeyerAI.com.
Does the count mean 52 companies are making humanoid robots?
No. The report says it classified nine companies as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. It categorized the others as suppliers, customers or market commentators, blank-check companies, or incidental mentions.
Why is this count different from Inc.’s reported 47?
ThorstenMeyerAI.com says the difference is likely due to the filing types and date window. Its own search covered four specified forms and filings through Nov. 1; the supplied source does not provide a full reconciliation with Inc.’s methodology.
What is a more concrete sign of commercial activity?
Specific disclosures such as a customer nomination, paid order, shipment, operating facility or reported revenue provide more information than a general statement that humanoids may be a growth market. Each metric still needs its own context and time period.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
