🔍 Read the full analysis: 52 Companies Mention Humanoid Robots. What Do Their SEC Filings Actually Say? 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 review of SEC filings counted 52 companies using the word “humanoid” in specified filings submitted from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, up from 17 in all of 2025 and six in 2024. The count includes robot makers, suppliers, customers, blank-check companies and passing references; it does not show that 52 companies operate humanoid robots or earn revenue from them.
A filing-by-filing review of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission records found 52 companies mentioning humanoid robots in selected filings submitted from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, but the references range from robot makers to suppliers, prospective customers and passing mentions. The count, published by ThorstenMeyerAI.com on Nov. 2, is a measure of corporate disclosure language—not proof that 52 companies build, deploy or profit from humanoids.
The review says it used the SEC’s EDGAR full-text search for “humanoid” in 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits. It counted registrants by SEC identification number and filings by accession number. The search returned 186 matching documents across 163 filings from 52 companies. Faraday Future accounted for 35 filings, according to the review.
The same search method found 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024. The author says an exact-phrase search for “humanoid robot” alone found 18 companies in 2026 because it did not capture all variations of the term. The article says its figures differ from an Inc. column published Nov. 1, which reported 47 companies, likely because of differences in filing types and the date range. The two counts should not be treated as identical datasets.
After reading the surrounding text, the author 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 making incidental references. These are the author’s classifications, not SEC categories. The article also says a search across all form types produced 272 entities, largely because investment funds’ holdings lists appeared in results, so those entities were excluded.
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 Sorting
The rising count shows that humanoid robots are appearing more often in public-company disclosures, but it cannot establish how many businesses have working systems, customer deployments or robot-related sales. Treating every mention as evidence of a commercial robotics operation would blur meaningful differences between a manufacturer, a component supplier and a company simply describing a possible market.
That distinction matters to investors and readers following the sector. A filing can describe an opportunity, a risk, a transaction or a concrete operating result. The article’s examples illustrate the range: Vishay Precision reportedly disclosed a vendor nomination letter from an initial humanoid-robotics customer, while some other companies mention humanoids alongside broad lists of potential markets. The source does not provide a complete revenue comparison across all 52 companies.
The review also cites past episodes in which companies adopted fashionable labels, including dot-com-era name changes and a 2017 beverage-company pivot to blockchain. Those examples are historical comparisons, not evidence that the current humanoid mentions are misleading. The article says regulators brought AI-washing cases in 2024 and 2025, including one involving a start-up that promised a humanoid home robot. The appropriate takeaway is to examine what each filing actually states rather than infer commercial progress from a keyword count.
Popular right now
Roborock H60 Ultra-B Cordless Stick Vacuum Cleaner
Dyson Ball Animal 3 Upright Vacuum
Shark Rotator Lift-Away Upright Vacuum, White/Red (NV501)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 52-Company Count Was Built
The count followed an Inc. column on Nov. 1 headlined “47 Companies Are Mentioning Humanoid Robots in SEC Filings. History Says That’s a Red Flag.” ThorstenMeyerAI.com says that column prompted its own search, but that it did not use the column as the source for its tally. Its search was conducted Nov. 2 using SEC EDGAR, with filing dates through Nov. 1.
The chosen forms cover annual and quarterly reports, current reports and registration statements. Including 8-K exhibits can capture investor presentations and press releases filed with the SEC, not just discussion in annual reports. The site says it excluded results from a broader search of all form types because many were investment funds whose holdings lists named humanoid-related investments. Its categories reflect a reading of the text around each result and should be understood as the author’s analysis.
The source identifies several corporate developments behind the mentions: Mobileye bought humanoid start-up Mentee Robotics for $637 million; Onconetix agreed to take over Realbotix; and Churchill Capital Corp XI is merging with Agility Robotics. These are distinct from the broader set of firms that refer to humanoids as a potential market or customer application.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— ThorstenMeyerAI.com, describing its filing review
What the Filings Do Not Establish
The tally does not show how many of the 52 companies have robots operating at customer sites, how much revenue they earn from humanoids or whether announced plans will be carried out. The source’s classifications are based on its reading of filing references, and it does not supply an independently audited dataset or a company-by-company financial breakdown.
Some operational figures in the article are company-reported. Agility Robotics reports nine customer facilities and 65,000 hours of operation, while Tesla says Optimus production has begun in Fremont but does not give unit numbers, according to the source. The review does not independently verify those claims. It also reports that Faraday Future recorded $853,000 in second-quarter robotics revenue combining humanoids and four-legged robots, while the company that bought its robot business expects more than 1,100 cumulative shipments. A prospectus issued seven weeks earlier reportedly described two paid orders worth about $5,000 for its robot-sharing platform. The source does not fully reconcile the different companies, periods or measures behind those figures.
It is also unclear how the count will change after Nov. 1, whether later filings will add companies, or how closely the 2026 figures can be compared with earlier years given the search’s form and date limits. A disclosure mention alone does not resolve whether a company has a viable product or a durable customer base.
Watch for Operating Evidence
The next useful evidence will come from subsequent filings and company disclosures that report shipments, customer deployments, paid orders and robotics revenue with clear time periods. Those measures can help distinguish a stated market opportunity from an operating business. Readers can also compare updated filing counts, while keeping the search terms, forms and date windows consistent.
Companies named in the review may provide more detail in quarterly or annual reports, transaction documents and other SEC filings. Until those records offer comparable figures, the 52-company tally is best read as a snapshot of where the term appeared in selected filings through Nov. 1—not as a count of active humanoid-robot businesses.
Key Questions
What does the figure of 52 companies measure?
It counts SEC registrants with the word “humanoid” in specified 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K or S-1 filings submitted from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, including amendments and exhibits. It is not a count of robot makers or deployments.
Why did the review find a different number from Inc.?
Inc. reported 47 companies in a Nov. 1 column. ThorstenMeyerAI.com says the difference likely reflects the filing types and date window used. The two results are not presented as counts from an identical search.
How many of the 52 companies build or own a humanoid maker?
The author classified nine as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. The remaining mentions included suppliers, customers, blank-check companies and incidental references, according to the review’s own categorization.
Does a mention mean a company has humanoid-robot revenue?
No. A filing may refer to a possible market, a supplier relationship, a business transaction or the term in passing. The review says the count alone does not establish sales, deployments or commercial success.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
