🔍 Read the full analysis: Why History Says To Read The Fine Print On 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 counted 52 companies mentioning humanoid robots from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, across 163 filings. The source’s analysis found that only nine build, sell or own a humanoid maker; many others are suppliers, customers, blank-check companies or incidental mentions. The count tracks growing attention, not commercial deployment or revenue.
A review of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings counted 52 companies mentioning humanoid robots in documents filed from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, but the filings do not show that all those companies build or operate robots. The analysis, published Nov. 2 by ThorstenMeyerAI.com, found that only nine build, sell or own a humanoid maker, while many others cite the technology as a market, supply-chain opportunity or passing reference.
The review counted 163 filings containing the word “humanoid,” covering 186 matching documents. It searched SEC EDGAR for 10-K annual reports, 10-Q quarterly reports, 8-K current reports and S-1 registration statements, including amendments and exhibits. The count treats each company as one SEC registrant and each filing accession number as one filing. One company, Faraday Future, accounted for 35 filings.
The same search method found 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024. Those are counts of companies mentioning the term in the specified forms, not measures of robot sales, deployments or investment. Inc. reported 47 companies on Nov. 1; the source says its own higher figure likely reflects differences in form types and the date range. It says it conducted its own search after reading that column.
After reviewing the passages around each mention, the author classified 31 companies as suppliers, customers or market-context references, six as blank-check companies, and six as incidental mentions. The nine companies in the build, sell or own category include Tesla, Mobileye and Faraday Future. The classification is the author’s interpretation of the filings, not an SEC determination.
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
A Filing Mention Is Not a Robot Sale
The increase in mentions is a measure of corporate attention, not evidence that a comparable number of businesses have working humanoid operations. Filings can point to very different things: a company may make robots, supply components, describe a possible customer market, or mention the term in a biography. Treating all mentions alike risks confusing a sales opportunity with revenue or deployment.
The source highlights the difference using Faraday Future. It says the company’s robotics business recorded $853,000 in second-quarter revenue from humanoids and four-legged robots combined. The company that recently bought the robotics business expects more than 1,100 cumulative shipments, according to the source. Yet Faraday’s prospectus, published seven weeks earlier, said its robot-sharing platform had two paid orders worth about $5,000 total. These figures concern different measures and should not be read as equivalent: revenue, orders, expected shipments and cumulative shipments each describe different things.
For readers tracking technology companies, the filings offer a way to test public descriptions against disclosures about revenue, customers and operating activity. The source’s comparison with earlier market fads is a caution about promotional language, not proof that today’s robotics firms are misleading investors. Commercial progress has to be judged company by company, and the count alone cannot establish success or failure.
Products Worth Considering
Apple Watch Series 12 GPS Smartwatch, 46 mm
Apple AirPods Pro 3 Wireless Earbuds with Active Noise Cancellation
Samsung 27-inch Odyssey QD-OLED G8 4K 240Hz Gaming Monitor
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the 2026 Count Was Built
The search used the broad term “humanoid,” which captures phrases such as “humanoid robot,” “humanoid robots” and “humanoid robotics.” The source says searching only the exact phrase “humanoid robot” returned 18 companies for the year, because that wording does not capture all variations. It limited the count to 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings rather than searching every SEC form.
That distinction affects the result. Searching all form types produced 272 entities, the source reports, largely because investment funds’ holdings lists included humanoid-robotics exchange-traded funds. The author excluded those from the 52-company count. The 2026 period ends on Nov. 1, so it is not a full-year comparison with the 2024 and 2025 calendar-year totals.
The filings also describe activity at different stages. The source says Agility Robotics reports nine customer facilities and 65,000 hours of operation. Tesla says Optimus production has begun in Fremont but provides no unit numbers in the material cited. These statements are attributed to the companies and do not, by themselves, establish the scale or economics of either operation.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— Thorsten Meyer, ThorstenMeyerAI.com
What the Filing Count Cannot Show
The count does not establish how many humanoid robots have been shipped, how many are working in customer facilities, or whether the businesses mentioned will generate sustainable revenue. The source’s categories are based on its reading of filing passages, and the supplied material does not provide the company-by-company evidence behind every classification.
Several specific claims also need careful interpretation. Faraday Future’s $853,000 figure combines humanoids and four-legged robots, while the cited two paid orders relate to a robot-sharing platform; the figures cover different measures. The source gives no unit count for Tesla’s reported Optimus production. It also does not establish how the expected cumulative shipment figure for the buyer of Faraday’s robotics business will be achieved or on what schedule.
The 2026 count is preliminary because its filing window stops on Nov. 1. The source says the difference from Inc.’s 47-company tally likely reflects search scope and date-window differences, but the supplied material does not reconcile the two counts company by company. No inference about any individual company’s investment value follows from the raw number of mentions.
Track Filings and Operating Evidence
The next useful evidence will come from subsequent company filings and disclosures that identify paid orders, delivered units, active customer sites and robotics revenue. Those measures can help distinguish announcements or market references from ongoing operations. For companies citing customers or suppliers, readers can also watch for details about the size, timing and terms of commercial agreements.
The 2026 count can change as additional filings arrive after Nov. 1, and a full-year comparison will require applying the same search terms, filing types and counting rules to a complete period. The source presents its review as an analysis of public documents, not a stock recommendation; humanoid robotics activity and company prospects remain uncertain, and securities can be volatile and involve a risk of loss.
Key Questions
How many companies mentioned humanoid robots in the review?
The review counted 52 companies in specified SEC filings dated from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026. It counted 163 filings and 186 matching documents.
Does mentioning humanoid robots mean a company makes them?
No. The source classified only nine of the 52 as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. Other mentions came from suppliers, customers, blank-check companies or incidental references.
How did the review search SEC filings?
It searched EDGAR for the term “humanoid” in 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits, filed through Nov. 1, 2026. The author counted companies by SEC registrant number and filings by accession number.
Why is the count different from Inc.’s figure?
Inc. reported 47 companies on Nov. 1, while the review counted 52. The author said the gap likely reflects differences in filing types and the date window; the supplied material does not provide a company-by-company reconciliation.
Does the count show that humanoid robots are commercially successful?
No. A filing mention is not a measure of sales or deployment. The review says some real deployments exist, but readers need company-specific evidence such as paid orders, shipments, customer sites and revenue to understand commercial activity.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
