🔍 Read the full analysis: What 52 SEC Filings Can—and Can’t—Tell Us About Humanoid Robots 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 review of SEC EDGAR filings found 52 companies using the term “humanoid” in filings from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, compared with 17 in all of 2025 and six in 2024. The count measures mentions, not robot deployments or sales: only nine companies were classified by the review as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker.
A review of SEC filings through Nov. 1, 2026, found that 52 companies mentioned humanoid robots, a sharp increase from 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024. The count documents rising corporate attention, but the filings show that most companies are not humanoid-robot makers, and a mention alone does not establish a product, deployment or meaningful revenue stream.
The review 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 filed from Jan. 1 to Nov. 1, 2026. It counted 163 filings containing 186 matching documents, grouped by company registrant number. Faraday Future accounted for 35 filings, making the overall total particularly sensitive to repeated filings by one company.
Of the 52 companies, the review classified nine as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. It placed 31 in supplier, customer or market-context categories, six among blank-check companies, and six in an incidental category, such as a passing reference in a biography. Those classifications are the author’s reading of the filing language, not an SEC determination.
The count differs from a Nov. 1 Inc. column that reported 47 companies. The review’s author says the difference is likely related to the forms included and the date window. Searching all SEC form types produces a much larger result, the author says, largely because investment funds’ holdings lists include humanoid-related funds. The review excluded those results and counted one company per registrant.
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 Scrutiny
The rising count offers a measure of corporate disclosure and market attention, but it is not a measure of commercial adoption. A supplier naming humanoids as a possible growth market, a company reporting a customer qualification, and a robot maker describing deployments are materially different cases. Treating each as equal evidence could overstate how much of the sector has operating products or paying customers.
That distinction matters to readers tracking the industry and to investors evaluating company claims. The review points to specific operating details as more informative than keyword frequency. Agility Robotics, for example, reports nine customer facilities and 65,000 hours of operation. The source review also says Tesla reported that Optimus production had begun in Fremont but did not provide unit numbers. These are company-reported statements, not independent verification of scale or performance.
Filings can also put promotional claims alongside less favorable numbers. Faraday Future reported $853,000 in second-quarter robotics revenue, combining humanoids and four-legged robots, according to the review. The company that acquired its robot business expected more than 1,100 cumulative shipments; a prospectus filed seven weeks earlier said the robot-sharing platform had two paid orders worth about $5,000 in total. These figures refer to different disclosures and measures, and do not by themselves establish future sales.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Keys S Wireless Keyboard, Graphite
Logitech MX Brio Ultra HD 4K Webcam, Graphite
Amazon Kindle Scribe (64GB) with Premium Pen, Metallic Jade
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the SEC Count Was Built
The review followed an earlier Inc. column but says it conducted its own search of EDGAR. Its query used the single term “humanoid”, which captures related forms such as “humanoid robots” and “humanoid robotics.” The author says searching only for the exact phrase “humanoid robot” returned 18 companies for the year, because that narrower query does not capture all wording variations.
The selected forms cover annual and quarterly reports, current reports and registration statements: 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1. The period was filing dates from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, compared with those same forms in earlier calendar years. The source reports six companies in 2024 and 17 in 2025. Those figures are not a complete count of every possible SEC document or every company discussing robots outside filings.
Historical comparisons require care. The review cites prior waves of companies adopting dot-com or blockchain language, as well as SEC cases involving AI-related claims. Those examples can explain why investors scrutinize shifts in corporate language, but they do not show that current humanoid disclosures are misleading. Each company’s evidence has to be assessed on its own, including whether it reports products, orders, revenue or actual operating hours.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— Thorsten Meyer, author of the filing review
What the Filing Count Cannot Show
The review is a keyword-based count and author classification, not an audit of robot production, sales or customer use. A filing may mention humanoids as a potential market, a risk, a supplier opportunity or an incidental reference. The source does not provide company-by-company evidence sufficient to verify every business relationship or claim independently.
The total also depends on the chosen search term, forms, dates and counting rules. Faraday Future’s 35 filings account for a substantial portion of the 163, while the reported difference from Inc.’s 47-company figure remains an explanation offered by the review’s author, not a reconciled comparison of both methodologies. It is also unclear how many companies will continue to mention humanoids in later filings or convert plans into repeatable sales.
Operational claims cited in the review are company-reported. The materials provided do not establish independent confirmation of Agility’s reported operating hours, Tesla’s production status, or the acquiring company’s shipment expectations. Nor do the figures specify a common measurement period or comparable definition of a shipment across companies.
Watch for Orders and Operating Data
The next useful evidence will come from subsequent company filings and disclosures that show whether humanoid plans lead to paid orders, recognized revenue and sustained deployments. Readers can also compare changes in reported customer sites, operating hours and production volumes, where companies disclose them, rather than relying on the number of filings containing a keyword.
The review does not identify a single upcoming milestone for all 52 companies. Their next reporting dates and business plans vary, and the source material does not confirm when each will provide updated figures. Until then, the 2026 count should be read as a snapshot of language in selected SEC filings through Nov. 1—not as a tally of robots in service or proof that the sector has reached commercial scale.
Key Questions
How many companies mentioned humanoids in the review?
The review found 52 companies in selected SEC filings dated Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026. It counted 17 companies in all of 2025 and six in 2024.
Does a filing mention mean the company makes humanoid robots?
No. The review classified only nine of the 52 companies 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 records?
It searched EDGAR for “humanoid” in 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and S-1 filings, including amendments and exhibits filed from Jan. 1 to Nov. 1, 2026. The author counted companies by SEC registrant number.
Why was the count different from Inc.’s figure?
Inc. reported 47 companies on Nov. 1. The review’s author said the gap was likely due to differences in forms searched and the date window; the provided material does not supply a full reconciliation of the two counts.
What evidence would show that humanoid businesses are scaling?
More informative indicators would include paid orders, recurring revenue, production volumes and sustained customer deployments. The review cautions that a keyword mention or an expectation is not the same as those operating results.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
