🔍 Read the full analysis: The Fine Print Behind Humanoid Robot Mentions At 52 Companies on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
Get the little things that make your day 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 mentioned humanoid robots from Jan. 1 through Nov. 1, 2026, compared with 17 in all of 2025 and six in 2024. The count covers a wide range of references: only nine companies were classified by the source as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker, while many others were suppliers, customers, blank-check firms or incidental mentions. A filing mention does not establish robot sales, deployments or revenue.
A review of SEC filings through Nov. 1, 2026, found that 52 companies mentioned humanoid robots, up from 17 companies in all of 2025 and six in 2024, according to ThorstenMeyerAI.com. The count tracks references to the technology, not robots sold or deployed: the outlet classified only nine of the 52 as companies that build, sell or own a humanoid maker.
The outlet said it searched the SEC’s EDGAR full-text database for the word “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 and 186 matching documents from 52 companies, identifying each company by its SEC registrant number. One company, Faraday Future, accounted for 35 of the filings.
The review classified 31 companies as suppliers, customers or market commentators, six as blank-check companies seeking deals, and six as making incidental references, such as in a director’s biography. The classifications reflect the outlet’s reading of each filing. Inc. reported 47 companies in a Nov. 1 column; ThorstenMeyerAI.com said its count differed, likely because of differences in filing types and the date window.
The search method matters to the headline number. Searching the exact phrase “humanoid robot” alone returned 18 companies for the year, the outlet said, because that query does not capture every plural or related form. Searching all SEC form types returned 272 entities, but the source excluded that broader result because it largely included investment funds whose holdings lists mentioned humanoid-robotics funds.
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 Mention Is Not a Deployment
The count shows that humanoid robotics has become a more common subject in corporate disclosures, but it cannot by itself establish commercial traction. A company may mention robots because it expects to sell components, is evaluating a customer market, has invested in a manufacturer or is seeking an acquisition. Those activities carry different levels of exposure and do not necessarily produce robot revenue.
That distinction matters to readers tracking the business behind the technology. The source’s review found supplier references alongside direct robot businesses and companies with no operating business of their own. Some supplier disclosures were specific: it cited Vishay Precision’s report of a vendor nomination letter from an initial humanoid-robotics customer. Other references placed humanoids in lists of possible markets, which is not evidence of orders or sales.
The figures also do not measure how many robots are working in commercial settings. The source points to reported deployments and company statements as separate evidence: Agility Robotics reported nine customer facilities and 65,000 hours of operation, while Tesla said production of Optimus had begun in Fremont but did not provide unit numbers. These examples cannot be inferred from the mention count itself.
Products Worth Considering
Ring Alarm 8-Piece Kit (2nd Gen) Home Security System
Arlo Pro Wireless Security Camera, 2K HDR, 6th Generation, 4-Camera Kit
Ring Alarm 14-Piece Wireless Security System Kit
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Filing Count Was Built
The tally followed a Nov. 1 Inc. column reporting 47 companies with humanoid references in SEC filings. ThorstenMeyerAI.com said that article prompted its own search, conducted on Nov. 2 using EDGAR. Its comparison found 17 companies in 2025 and six in 2024 using the same selected forms. The periods differ: 2026 data stops on Nov. 1, while the earlier figures cover full calendar years.
The nine companies placed in the source’s direct-build, sell or ownership category included Tesla, Faraday Future and its robotics ecosystem, Mobileye and parent Intel, Richtech Robotics, Onconetix, Hyperscale Data and SS Innovations. The source said Mobileye bought Mentee Robotics for $637 million, while Onconetix agreed to take over Realbotix. Six blank-check firms were counted separately; such companies are formed to pursue mergers and do not necessarily have operating businesses of their own.
The source also set the current attention against earlier market waves. It cited research on dot-com-related name changes and a 2017 beverage-company pivot to blockchain, as well as SEC enforcement actions involving AI-related claims in 2024 and 2025. Those comparisons provide a reason to examine disclosure language carefully, but they do not show that the companies in this year’s count have made misleading statements.
“A word in a filing is not a robot in a warehouse.”
— ThorstenMeyerAI.com
What the Count Cannot Establish
The 52-company figure is a document search result, not a count of robot makers, customers, shipments or active deployments. The source says it read the sentences around each mention, but its category assignments are interpretive. The count may also vary with search terms, forms included, filing dates and decisions about whether to include exhibits or amendments.
Several business details remain unknown from the tally. It does not provide a company-by-company measure of humanoid-related revenue, orders, production capacity or the share of each company’s business tied to the technology. Nor does it establish whether a market reference reflects a funded project, a future sales opportunity or only general discussion.
The supplied source gives selected examples of filing details but does not provide the full text of all three promised case studies. It reports that Faraday Future’s robotics revenue was $853,000 in the second quarter, combining humanoids and four-legged robots, and contrasts that with a prospectus that said its robot-sharing platform had two paid orders worth about $5,000 in total. It also says the company that bought the robot business expects more than 1,100 cumulative shipments. The basis, timing and reconciliation of those figures are not fully detailed in the material available here.
Track Filings and Operating Results
The next useful evidence will come from subsequent company filings and reported operating results: orders, recognized revenue, shipment totals, production figures and named customer deployments. Investors and readers can also repeat the search as new filings arrive, while keeping the same forms, date range and query if they want a comparable count.
Companies’ disclosures may clarify whether market references become contracts or remain forward-looking statements. For the tally itself, ThorstenMeyerAI.com’s review covers filings only through Nov. 1, 2026; it does not establish what companies will disclose later in the year. No additional count or next update date was specified in the supplied material.
Key Questions
What does the figure of 52 companies represent?
It is ThorstenMeyerAI.com’s count of distinct SEC registrants whose specified 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K or S-1 filings used the word “humanoid” between Jan. 1 and Nov. 1, 2026. It is not a count of robots or deployments.
Why does the count differ from Inc.’s figure of 47?
ThorstenMeyerAI.com said the difference was likely due to the filing types included and the date window. Inc. published its figure on Nov. 1; the other outlet conducted its own search using selected forms and filings through that date.
How many companies were directly involved in making humanoid robots?
The source classified nine of the 52 as building, selling or owning a humanoid maker. That is the outlet’s classification based on its reading of the filings, not an official SEC category.
Does a filing mention show that a company is earning money from humanoids?
No. A mention may concern a supplier opportunity, a customer, a possible market, an investment or an incidental reference. The count does not measure humanoid-related revenue, and the source says many of the companies were not direct robot makers.
What evidence would show commercial progress?
Specific disclosures about paid orders, recognized revenue, shipments, production volumes and customer deployments would provide more direct evidence than a general reference in a filing. The source reports some examples but does not provide those measures for all 52 companies.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
