🔍 Read the full analysis: A History-Informed Read Of Humanoid Robots In SEC Filings on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the latest gadgets 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 ThorstenMeyerAI.com review of SEC filings found 52 companies used the term “humanoid” in 163 filings from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, up from 17 companies in all of 2025 and six in 2024. The count tracks mentions, not deployments or sales: the review classified only nine companies as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker.
A review of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings found that 52 companies mentioned humanoid robots between Jan. 1 and Nov. 1, 2026, in 163 filings—a larger tally than the 17 companies counted for all of 2025. The increase shows the term spreading through corporate disclosures, but the review says most mentions do not establish that a company makes or deploys humanoid robots.
ThorstenMeyerAI.com said 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. The same method found 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024.
The publication classified companies by their strongest use of the term after reviewing surrounding text. It said nine companies build, sell or own a humanoid maker; 31 are suppliers, customers or companies referring to the market; six are blank-check companies; and six mention humanoids incidentally. Faraday Future alone accounted for 35 of the 163 filings. The source said Inc. had reported 47 companies on Nov. 1, and attributed the difference as likely stemming from the forms and date window counted.
The filing references vary in substance. Suppliers such as Micron, SiTime and Diodes cite humanoids as a potential market, while telecommunications company T-Mobile says Figure’s robots are designed to connect to its network. Vishay Precision reported a “vendor nomination letter from our initial humanoid robotics customer,” which the review described as a concrete business step. Such disclosures, however, do not by themselves establish meaningful sales or a scaled deployment.
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
Mentions Do Not Equal Robot Sales
The count offers a measure of how humanoid robotics is entering public-company and prospective-company disclosures, but it is not a measure of industry output. A company can mention the market because it supplies components, serves a potential customer, is seeking an acquisition or simply references the technology in passing. Investors and readers need to distinguish those uses from evidence of orders, revenue and operating robots.
The review points to different levels of evidence in the filings. Agility Robotics reports nine customer facilities and 65,000 hours of operation, according to the source. Tesla says Optimus production has begun in Fremont, but the source says Tesla has not disclosed unit numbers. Those statements provide more operational detail than a broad reference to humanoids as a growth opportunity, though they do not establish comparable scale or commercial performance.
That distinction matters because a filing can contain both promotional framing and more limited financial or operational disclosures. The publication cited Faraday Future’s second-quarter robotics revenue of $853,000 for humanoid and four-legged robots combined. It also said the company that acquired Faraday’s robot business expects more than 1,100 cumulative shipments, while a prospectus filed seven weeks earlier described two paid orders for its robot-sharing platform worth about $5,000 in total. These figures refer to different disclosures and measures; they do not, on their own, show that the shipment expectation has been met.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Mechanical Wireless Illuminated Keyboard, Tactile Quiet, Graphite
Apple Watch Series 12 GPS Smartwatch, 46 mm
Jackery Explorer 2000 v2 Portable Power Station with Two 200W Solar Panels
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Filing Count Was Built
The report says an Inc. column published Nov. 1 prompted its own search, but was not the source of the tally. The authors searched EDGAR on Nov. 2, counting filing dates from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026. They used the word “humanoid,” rather than only the exact phrase “humanoid robot”; the source says that narrower phrase returned 18 companies for the year because it misses variants such as “humanoid robots” and “humanoid robotics.”
The choice of filing types also affects the result. The authors included annual, quarterly, current and registration statements, but excluded other form types. They said searching all form types returned 272 entities, largely because investment funds’ holdings lists included humanoid-robotics exchange-traded funds. The source’s year-to-year comparison uses its selected forms and counting rules; it is not a count of every public mention or every company active in robotics.
The report also invokes earlier waves of corporate technology claims as cautionary context. It cites research on dot-com name changes and a 2017 beverage-company pivot to blockchain, as well as SEC “AI washing” cases in 2024 and 2025. These examples do not prove that current humanoid disclosures are misleading. They underline why the wording and supporting evidence in each filing matter more than the presence of a trending term.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— ThorstenMeyerAI.com report
What the Tally Cannot Establish
The count does not show how many robots have been built, shipped or placed in customer facilities, nor how much revenue the sector generates. It also does not independently verify companies’ projections or claims. The classification of each company reflects the report authors’ reading of filing language, and the source does not provide a complete breakdown of the underlying documents in the material supplied here.
Several company-specific figures need careful interpretation. Faraday Future’s revenue figure combines humanoid and four-legged robots, while the more than 1,100 cumulative shipments figure is an expectation attributed to the acquiring company, not a confirmed shipment total. The earlier prospectus’s two paid orders and roughly $5,000 in value concern a robot-sharing platform. The supplied material does not explain how those measures will develop or reconcile.
The source also does not specify the exact filing-by-filing basis behind every operational statement, or provide details such as the dates and definitions used for Agility’s reported hours. Tesla’s production statement lacks a unit figure in the account. Further filings or company disclosures may clarify those points; the mention count itself cannot.
Future Filings Will Test the Claims
The next useful evidence will come from subsequent SEC filings and company disclosures that quantify orders, shipments, revenue, deployments and operating hours. For firms describing humanoids as a market opportunity, reported customer wins or named commercial programs would help show whether the reference has advanced beyond market context. For robot makers, unit counts and financial results would provide a clearer measure of progress than production announcements alone.
The 2026 tally is also a moving count: it covers filings through Nov. 1, not the full calendar year. A later update could add companies or filings, and a different set of forms or search terms would produce a different total. Until then, the report’s central finding is limited but specific: more companies are using humanoid-related language in selected SEC filings, while the filings describe a wide range of involvement and do not establish broad commercial deployment.
Key Questions
How many companies mentioned humanoids in the filings?
The review counted 52 companies in 163 filings dated Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026. It found 17 companies in all of 2025 and six in 2024 using the same selected filing types and method.
Does the count mean 52 companies make humanoid robots?
No. The report classified nine companies 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 group.
How did the report search SEC filings?
It searched EDGAR for “humanoid” in 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits, and counted companies by SEC registrant number. It covered filings dated Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026.
What does the filing count say about actual deployments?
By itself, it says nothing about the total number of deployed robots. The report cites company disclosures such as Agility Robotics’ reported nine customer facilities and 65,000 operating hours, but the broader tally combines companies with very different roles and levels of evidence.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
