Several brands selling through-the-wall/double-duct units in Canada and the United States are publishing performance figures that are mathematically impossible, legally non-compliant, or both. This report examines each brand individually and, using the companies’ own published numbers, shows why their claims cannot be true.
The fraud originates with three Chinese manufacturers — Wuxi Hammer, Nordica, and Zymbo — who supply the hardware to a network of private-label resellers. Those resellers then attach their own brand names and, in most cases, inflate the already-questionable factory numbers even further. In several instances, a reseller’s published performance figures exceed the manufacturer’s claims for the same product — a physical impossibility.
The core violations fall into four categories:
None of the brands covered in this report holds a valid certification from AHRI (the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute) or a performance report from an accredited testing laboratory such as Intertek, UL, or CSA. The ratings are not measured. They are invented.
Applied Comfort
Fabricated Ratings and Illegal Product Classification
Applied Comfort publishes three key figures for its unit: 10,000 BTU of cooling capacity, 535 watts of power consumption, and an EER of 8.9.
These numbers do not add up. EER is calculated by dividing BTU by watts: 10,000 ÷ 535 = 18.7 EER. That is more than double what Applied Comfort publishes, and a value that this type of hardware is physically incapable of achieving. At least one of the three figures must be wrong — and in all likelihood, all of them are.
Applied Comfort also classifies its product as a Packaged Terminal Heat Pump (PTHP). However, the unit has no wall sleeve, no removable chassis, and no through-the-wall design — all of which are required by the Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016, to carry the PTHP designation. The classification is illegal.
On top of this, Applied Comfort publishes a CEER rating of 12.3 alongside an EER of 8.9. As explained above, CEER must always be lower than EER. A CEER of 12.3 with an EER of 8.9 is a mathematical impossibility.
The product does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List (Canada) or the DOE CCMS Database (USA), both of which are mandatory before a product can legally be sold in those markets.
DesignLine (RoomMate)
Inflated Capacity and Fabricated Efficiency
DesignLine markets the RoomMate MHP10 and MHP11 as PTHPs with 12,000 BTU of cooling capacity and 11,200 BTU of heating capacity. Like Applied Comfort, these products do not meet the legal definition of a PTHP — they lack a wall sleeve and a removable chassis.
The efficiency claim of 9.8 EER falls below the minimum legal efficiency requirement for PTHPs of this size, making the label itself a regulatory violation regardless of whether the number is accurate.
On the heating side, the problems are even more striking. DesignLine claims 11,200 BTU of heating output and a COP (Coefficient of Performance) of 3.5. Yet the manufacturer of the underlying hardware, Nordica, only claims approximately 9,000 BTU and a COP of 3.1 to 3.4 for this same product. A reseller cannot legitimately claim better performance than the manufacturer for identical hardware.
There is a further red flag: under the physics of refrigeration (as defined in AHRI Standard 210/240), higher capacity output on a small platform always comes with lower efficiency, not higher. DesignLine claims both higher capacity and higher efficiency than the manufacturer. That is not possible.
The product does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List or the DOE CCMS Database.
Dubbll
Internally Contradictory Numbers
Dubbll claims 12,030 BTU cooling at 15.5. Dubbll publishes three efficiency figures for the same unit: a SEER2 of 17, a CEER of 12.26, and an EER2 of 9.9. These numbers directly contradict one another and the manufacturer’s own data.
A SEER2 rating of 17 indicates a level of efficiency far beyond what this hardware can achieve. The figures cannot all be true simultaneously, and, based on the product’s physical characteristics, none of them appear to be.
The product does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List.
Exinda
Impossible Heat Pump Performance and Double Illegal Metrics
Exinda’s HPERV, manufactured by Guangdong Exinda Technology, publishes 11,000 BTU of cooling at an EER of 10.75 and 14,000 BTU of heating at a COP of 3.72, drawing 1,300 watts. Both metrics are illegal. For heat pumps in this class, SEER2 and HSPF2 have been mandatory since January 1, 2023, and Exinda publishes neither rating.
The cooling figure displayed in Exinda’s literature compounds the problem. The number listed as “EER” is 3.15. EER is defined as BTU per watt; 3.15 is a dimensionless watt-per-watt ratio — the formula for COP, not EER. Exinda is publishing a COP-style number under an EER label, which is a unit error on top of a metric error. The figure is not just wrong, it is the wrong kind of figure.
The arithmetic does not hold up against Exinda’s own data either. 14,000 BTU of heating equals 4,103 watts of thermal output; divided by 1,300 watts of input, the actual COP is 3.16, not 3.72. Even the figure Exinda chose to publish is contradicted by the figures it published alongside.
The relationship between the cooling and heating claims is physically impossible. A heat pump’s heating cycle is the reverse of its cooling cycle, so the two outputs on the same hardware must be similar in magnitude. Exinda asks customers to accept 27.3% more heat than cooling (14,000 BTU vs. 11,000 BTU) at 17.5% higher efficiency on the same unit. Under the physics of refrigeration, this is not possible.
Exinda also misclassifies the HPERV as a PTHP by using EER. The unit has no wall sleeve, no separately encased chassis, and no through-the-wall mounting — none of the structural requirements the Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 mandate for the PTHP designation. Even taken at face value, the EER of 10.75 falls below the 13.4 SEER2 minimum, and no SEER2 figure is published because the hardware cannot achieve one.
The product does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List or the DOE CCMS Database.
Forest Air
A Product That Fails Its Own Published Specifications
Forest Air’s listings contain an efficiency rating labeled “REER” — a metric that does not exist in any regulatory framework. This appears to be a typographical error for “CEER.” The published value of 2.6 falls far below the minimum required CEER of 9.3.
Even if 2.6 is interpreted generously as an EER-equivalent figure using a unit conversion (2.6 multiplied by a conversion factor gives approximately 8.87), the unit still fails to meet the legal minimum.
The actual math makes things worse. Forest Air’s FPH-12-2PA is listed as producing 8,000 BTU while consuming 1,380 watts. Dividing those figures gives an EER of 5.80 — well below any legal threshold, and so low that a legitimate CEER derived from it cannot possibly reach 8.87.
By Forest Air’s own numbers, this product is illegal to sell in Canada. The company does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List.
Genuine Comfort
Anything but Genuine — Fake Certifications and Impossible Performance Claims
Genuine Comfort claims 12,030 BTU of cooling at a SEER2 of 15.55, and 11,970 BTU of heating at an 8.2 HSPF2. These are among the highest-performance claims of any brand in this report — and they are being made for hardware that is physically incapable of achieving them.
Genuine Comfort’s specifications exceed those of its own supplier, Zymbo, for the same product. A reseller’s product cannot outperform the manufacturer’s identical hardware. The only explanation is that Genuine Comfort invented the numbers.
There is no AHRI listing, no SCC-accredited lab report, and no credible evidence to support these claims.
Most significantly, Genuine Comfort places an “AHRI Certified” logo on their website, creating the false impression this fake spec unit has been performance tested and certified by AHRI, when it is not only not AHRI certified, but it does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List or the DOE CCMS Database, rendering it absolutely illegal to import, sell, install, or use.
Ice Air
A Capacity Reduction That Creates New Impossibilities
Ice Air markets what is essentially the same hardware as other brands in this report, but lists a lower cooling capacity of 7,800 BTU. This might appear to be a more conservative and honest approach — but the efficiency figures attached to that reduced capacity tell a different story.
Ice Air claims a SEER2 of 17. Using Ice Air’s own figures, 7,800 BTU divided by 703 watts yields an EER2 of 11.1. A SEER2 of 17 for this coil, compressor, and fan configuration is not achievable under AHRI Standard 210/240.
For context, other brands selling the same platform report EER and EER2 values of approximately 9.8–9.9. Nordica, the manufacturer, claims a SEER2 of 16 for a 10,000 BTU version. Ice Air’s claim of 17 SEER2 on a 7,800 BTU unit using the same hardware has no credible basis.
Inspiron Air
Numbers Beyond Physical Possibility
Inspiron Air is a brand of Wuxi Hammer, a Chinese manufacturer. Its published figures are so inflated that even Multi MFG — another brand selling the identical hardware — dramatically reduced the numbers before publishing its own specifications, apparently finding Wuxi Hammer’s claims implausible.
Wuxi Hammer publishes SEER (the outdated metric) rather than the legally required SEER2, and omits the HSPF2 heating rating entirely, substituting a COP figure instead.
The arithmetic does not hold up. Wuxi Hammer lists 12,000 BTU of cooling capacity and 1,150 watts of power input. The correct EER calculation is: 12,000 ÷ 1,150 = 10.43. Wuxi Hammer publishes an EER of 11.3. The number in the brochure does not match the math.
The product does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List or the DOE CCMS Database.
Kinghome
Copying Fraud Without Checking the Math
Kinghome does not appear to have invented its own false numbers. Instead, it copied the specifications directly from its supplier, Zymbo, without verifying their accuracy.
That is not a defense. Publishing false performance data is illegal regardless of where the figures came from. Zymbo lists 12,000 BTU and 1,209 watts for the Dolphin 40 unit, and claims an EER of 10.5. The correct calculation is: 12,000 ÷ 1,209 = 9.93 EER. Kinghome published Zymbo’s incorrect figure of 10.5 without question.
The product does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List or the DOE CCMS Database.
Mits Air and Technoact
No Efficiency Claims at All
Mits Air and Technoact take a different approach: they publish capacity and power-input figures but make no efficiency claims whatsoever. There is no CEER, no SEER2, no EER — not even an incorrect one.
This does not represent compliance. Under Canadian and US regulations, certain efficiency ratings are mandatory on product listings and labels. Omitting them entirely is itself a regulatory violation.
Neither brand appears on the NRCan Searchable Product List.
Multi MFG
Scaled-Back Fraud is Still Fraud
Multi MFG sells the same Wuxi Hammer hardware as Inspiron Air, but clearly did not trust the manufacturer’s numbers. Where Wuxi Hammer claims 12,000 BTU, Multi MFG lists only 9,600 BTU. Where Wuxi Hammer claims a SEER of 16.95, Multi MFG publishes 14.8.
This is an implicit acknowledgment that the manufacturer’s figures are not credible. But reducing implausible numbers to merely improbable numbers does not constitute honesty. Multi MFG still publishes EER and SEER figures instead of the legally required EER2 and SEER2, and the numbers are not supported by any certified laboratory testing.
The product does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List or the DOE CCMS Database.
Nordica
Nordica is one of the two original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) at the root of this chain of fabricated data. The inflated numbers that resellers copy and further exaggerate begin here.
Nordica lists its unit’s cooling output at 10,000 BTU and its power input at either 1,080 or 1,020 watts, depending on the document — an inconsistency that is itself a warning sign. Using those figures: 10,000 ÷ 1,080 = 9.26 EER, and 10,000 ÷ 1,020 = 9.80 EER. Neither figure supports Nordica’s published EER of 9.9.
The heating figures are similarly misleading. Nordica claims 9,000 BTU of heating output with a COP of 3.1 at 115 volts and 3.4 at 230 volts. The correct COP calculations based on its own data are 2.84 (at 115V) and 3.1 (at 230V) — figures that Nordica significantly rounds up.
No AHRI certification exists for these ratings. When downstream brands copy and inflate numbers that were already inflated, the resulting figures become increasingly detached from reality. Nordica’s false baseline is the starting point for the fraud documented throughout this report.
The product does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List or the DOE CCMS Database.
Ortech
Fake Certifications and Impossible Performance Claims
Ortech claims 12,030 BTU of cooling at a SEER2 of 15.5, and 12,000 BTU of heating at a COP of 3.7 with an HSPF2 of 8.29. These are the highest performance claims of any brand in this report — and they are being made for hardware that is physically incapable of achieving them.
Ortech’s specifications exceed those of its own supplier, Zymbo, for the same product. A reseller’s product cannot outperform the manufacturer’s identical hardware. The only explanation is that Ortech invented the numbers. There is no AHRI listing, no SCC-accredited lab report, and no credible evidence to support these claims.
Most significantly, Ortech places a “Pending AHRI” logo on its product documentation. This logo does not exist. AHRI confirmed this in writing, stating that “no such logo exists and is not allowed to be used.” The use of a fabricated certification mark to create the appearance of third-party verification is an especially serious form of consumer deception.
The product does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List or the DOE CCMS Database.
PMC Green
Copying the Wrong Numbers Twice
PMC Green claims 10,000 BTU of cooling capacity and a CEER of 12.26 — a figure it appears to have copied directly from Applied Comfort.
The problem is the same as it is for Applied Comfort: using PMC’s own figures of 10,000 BTU and 535 watts, the EER calculates to 18.7. Since CEER must be lower than EER, and since CEER and EER differ by only a few percentage points in practice, a CEER of 12.26 alongside an EER of 18.7 is a physical impossibility.
PMC Green also uses CEER as a heating-efficiency metric — a use with no basis in any DOE or AHRI standard. CEER is a cooling metric only.
The product does not qualify as a Room Air Conditioner under DOE definitions, making its RAC classification false. PMC Green never publishes the required SEER2 rating, presumably because this hardware cannot meet the 13.4 minimum.
The product does not appear on the DOE CCMS Database.
Silktech
False Data Submitted to a Government Database
Silktech markets two units manufactured by Zymbo. Its violations go beyond publishing inflated figures in a brochure — the company submitted false data to the California Energy Commission’s MAEDBS database. This government system requires manufacturers to certify the accuracy of their submissions.
For the EcoAuro 1.0, Silktech increased the cooling capacity from the 8,000 BTU printed in its own brochure to 8,831 BTU when filing with the government database, and increased the heating capacity from 8,000 BTU to 8,800 BTU. No certified laboratory can produce test results supporting these figures.
The internal inconsistencies in Silktech’s own documents are also telling. The EcoAuro 2.0 is listed with 12,030 BTU, 1,100 watts, and an EER of 11.6. The arithmetic: 12,030 ÷ 1,100 = 10.94 EER — not 11.6. Silktech’s own numbers do not support Silktech’s own published EER.
Both units are incorrectly classified as PTHPs.
The EcoAuro 2.0 appears in the DOE CCMS Database, but with false numbers. The EcoAuro 1.0 does not appear in the DOE CCMS Database, but is in the California MAEDBS system — also with false numbers. Neither unit appears on the NRCan Searchable Product List.
Waysos
Copying Mistakes without Understanding Them
Waysos sells three models sourced from Zymbo and Nordica. Rather than verifying the manufacturer’s figures, Waysos reproduces them directly — including the mathematical errors embedded in the original data.
The result is a product line built on a foundation of copied fabrications. Whether Waysos understood the numbers it was publishing is unclear. That it did not check them is evident.
The products do not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List or the DOE CCMS Database.
Williams
Quietly Adjusting Numbers That Were Already Wrong
Williams markets the Montara HP003 as an 8,000 BTU heat pump, listing an EER of 8.9 and a SEER of 13.9. Both EER and SEER are outdated metrics; current regulations require EER2 and SEER2. No certified laboratory testing supports any of these figures.
Like Multi MFG, Williams appears to have had reservations about its supplier’s numbers. Williams sources hardware from Zymbo, which lists the same unit at 8,831 BTU with 750 watts of input. Williams reduced the capacity to 8,000 BTU and increased the stated wattage to 900 watts — adjustments that implicitly acknowledge Zymbo’s numbers are not trustworthy.
Despite these reductions, the adjusted figures still do not reflect real-world performance and would not survive laboratory testing.
For the heating efficiency, Williams publishes a COP of 3.2 rather than the legally required HSPF2 rating.
The product does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List or the DOE CCMS Database.
Zymbo
Where the Second Chain of Fraud Begins
Zymbo is the second OEM at the source of this network. Like Nordica, Zymbo’s published specifications contain internal arithmetic errors — meaning that its own listed capacity and wattage figures do not produce the EER and COP values it claims.
For the Clima Puro unit, Zymbo lists 8,831 BTU of cooling and 750 watts of power. The correct EER: 8,831 ÷ 750 = 11.77. Zymbo publishes 10.6 — a number its own data does not support.
In heating, Zymbo lists 8,800 BTU at 700 watts. The correct COP calculation: 8,800 ÷ 3.412 ÷ 700 = 3.68. Zymbo publishes 3.35.
For the Dolphin 40, Zymbo lists 12,000 BTU at 1,209 watts. The correct EER: 12,000 ÷ 1,209 = 9.93. Zymbo publishes 10.5.
In every case, the published efficiency figure is more favorable than the one that results from Zymbo’s own capacity and wattage data. The specifications are not the product of real testing.
Additionally, EER and COP are not the correct regulatory metrics. SEER2 and HSPF2 are legally required.
The product does not appear on the NRCan Searchable Product List or the DOE CCMS Database.
Summary of Violations
Every brand examined in this report shares at least one of the following violations. Most share all of them.
Fabricated performance data
Published BTU, EER, CEER, SEER2, HSPF2, and COP figures that are not the result of accredited laboratory testing, and that, in most cases, cannot be reconciled with the brands’ own published wattage and capacity figures.
Use of outdated or inapplicable metrics — EER instead of EER2, SEER instead of SEER2, COP instead of HSPF2, or CEER in markets where it has no legal standing.
Illegal product classifications
Labeling products as PTHPs when they do not meet the legal design requirements for that category.
Missing government registrations
Selling products in Canada and the United States without completing the mandatory registration on the NRCan Searchable Product List and the DOE CCMS Database.
Not a single brand in this report holds a valid AHRI certification or a performance report from an SCC-accredited testing body.
Consumers purchasing these products are not getting what the label promises. The capacity and efficiency figures on the box were not produced by independent testing — the seller produced them. And in many cases, the seller’s own arithmetic does not support their own claims.
All calculations in this report use the manufacturers’ and resellers’ own published figures. Sources include product brochures, specification sheets, manufacturer websites, and government compliance databases. Mathematical formulas applied are those defined by AHRI, DOE, and NRCan standards.
