Copycat units, under various Nordica brands, list multiple BTU capacities and efficiencies for what is, visually and mechanically, the same hardware. The compressor, indoor and outdoor coils, refrigerant charge, and airflow path are identical, yet the published capacities range from 7,800 to 11,970 BTU, including 9,000, 10,000, 11,200, and 12,000 BTU. Such variations with similar efficiency ratings are impossible.
The same goes for copycat units manufactured by Zymbo: The compressor, indoor and outdoor coils, refrigerant charge, and airflow path are identical, yet the published capacities range from 8.9 EER for 8,000 BTU to 11.77 EER for 8,831 BTU. How exactly is the same unit capable of achieving 32% higher efficiency with a higher capacity??!!
Wuxi Hammer units have the same issue. One brand markets the unit as a 12,000 BTU model with a claimed 11.3 EER and a 16.95 SEER (not the required SEER2), and another brand sells the same unit but with a far more conservative 9,600 BTU with a lower EER of 11.1 and a lower SEER (not the required SEER2) of 14.8. As before, how can a higher-capacity unit be more efficient? In an inverter heat pump, a higher capacity always reduces efficiency, and a lower capacity always increases efficiency. Yet, these companies publish the opposite trend, contradicting AHRI 210/240 performance curves, basic thermodynamics, and NRCan or DOE testing logic.
Capacity Manipulation and What It Demonstrates
Brands manipulate printed capacity to distort efficiency calculations. Ice Air labels a single Nordica platform as 7,800 BTU to present a super-high 17 SEER2 artificially. In comparison, other brands label the same unit at 12,000 BTU to claim higher output — a 54% increase in capacity with no hardware changes and similar efficiency ratings — which cannot occur in real equipment, proving the data is fabricated.
The same pattern appears with Zymbo units. Ortech labels a Zymbo unit as 12,030 BTU for an inflated 15.5 SEER2 rating, while other brands label the identical unit at 10,000 BTU with a 12.3 CEER rating or 12,000 BTU at 9.8 EER. Williams further distorts the picture by claiming the unit uses 900W at 8,000 BTU. At the same time, Zymbo — the actual manufacturer — rates the same unit at 8,831 BTU using only 750W, yielding an implausibly high EER of 11.77. Presenting false capacity and efficiency values in this way violates the FTC Act and the Competition Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34)’s prohibitions on deceptive practices, DOE and NRCan certification rules requiring truthful performance reporting, AHRI 210/240 accuracy standards, and EPCA §6291, which governs energy-efficiency representations.
Mathematical Contradictions in SEER2 and EER
Published data from these brands often contradict each other mathematically for the same unit. A specification from Applied Comfort’s Coolflow 32 shows 10,000 BTU of cooling with 535 watts of input power produces a calculated EER of 18.7, yet Applied Comfort states a calculated EER of 8.9. These numbers cannot coexist: accurate wattage would yield an EER of 18.7; accurate EER would require roughly 1,123 watts; and if neither matches, the entire specification sheet is inaccurate.
These contradictions appear across multiple brands that use EER instead of CEER or SEER2. They use COP/COP2 instead of HSPF2. Such inconsistencies make it clear that the published efficiency claims are not based on valid laboratory testing.
SEER2/HSPF2 and CEER are the Only Legal Ratings for the USA and Canada
SEER2 and HSPF2 ratings under AHRI 210/240, with ASHRAE 37 testing, are the only legally valid ratings for this class of heat pump for cooling and heating in both the USA and Canada. For Canada, CEER is a valid rating, but only until May 2026. The minimum required efficiencies for heat pumps are 13.4 SEER2 for cooling, 6.7 HSPF2 for heating in the USA, and 5.4 HSPF2 for heating in Canada. Any other metric — CEER, EER, EER2 — applied outside its legal context is an illegal, non-compliant rating that, on its own, renders a unit illegal to sell and use.
None of the copycat brands publishes a lawful SEER2. Some publish a SEER2 figure; however, that rating is fabricated and cannot be replicated in a lab test, and others cannot realistically achieve 13.4 SEER2 based on their claimed capacity. Every alternative rating these brands publish is a violation of 10 C.F.R. Part 430, FTC truth-in-advertising rules, the Competition Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34), AHRI 210/240, and federal law under EPCA. The combination of legal requirements, technical analysis, and mathematical inconsistencies confirms that the published ratings are fabricated and the products are being misrepresented in both markets.
Compliance Style Rating Table
Here, one can see very clearly that, according to the numbers that companies publish (all are fake anyhow), they are bad fakes, because the numbers do not even appear to comply with the required standards.
Of all the units, only Applied Comfort’s Coolflow meets the 12.3 CEER requirement; however, effective May 2026, this rating will no longer be compliant, as it will need to be 13.7 CEER. Side note, the 12.3 CEER is fake as well.
For units rated according to SEER2 and HSPF2, the only seemingly compliant style ratings are from Ortech, Ice Air, Genuine Comfort, Dubbll, Nordica, and Waysos. This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean their purported numbers are real; it just means that what they (falsely) claim is at least compliant.
None of the other brands has compliant ratings. Designline, Silktech, Zymbo, and Kinghome only display an EER and COP, neither of which is legal. Williams, Inspiron Air, and Multi MFG all publish non-compliant SEER (instead of SEER2) and COP (instead of HSPF2).
Using a COP instead of HSPF2 means they never did any real tests and just made up numbers, because the SEER and SEER2 test methods include a heating test, and the heating test output is HSPF and HSPF2, not COP.
Forest Air, while publishing a COP, does not publish a SEER2 or HSPF2, but rather makes up its own REER rating. This REER appears multiple times in all their documents. Perhaps they meant CEER. But with a 7.2, it fails all requirements. Forest Air shows the “REER” rating is (BTU/W*hr), which is EER.
Finally, Mits Air and Techno publish no ratings.
None of the copycat brands publishes a lawful SEER2. Some publish SEER2; however, that SEER2 rating is fake and cannot be replicated in a lab test. Others cannot realistically achieve 13.4 SEER2 based on their claimed capacity.
When they fail to publish SEER2 or CEER, every alternative rating they publish, SEER, EER, EER2, COP, or COP2, is a violation of Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016, the Competition Bureau truth-in-advertising rules, AHRI 210/240, and federal law under the Energy Efficiency Act. The combination of legal requirements, technical analysis, and mathematical inconsistencies shows that the published ratings are fabricated and the products are being misrepresented in the Canadian market.
