| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| cost-effective | 0.792 | 12088 |
| cost_effective | 0.762 | 15101 |
| cost-efficient | 0.747 | 81922 |
| cost_efficient | 0.728 | 94706 |
| a_low-cost | 0.726 | 67746 |
| an_affordable | 0.692 | 35923 |
| a_scalable | 0.685 | 93692 |
| more_cost-effective | 0.671 | 72275 |
| a_low_cost | 0.668 | 52787 |
| an_efficient | 0.665 | 16489 |
| an_inexpensive | 0.653 | 61517 |
| low-cost | 0.640 | 15096 |
| a_reliable | 0.635 | 13764 |
| low_cost | 0.607 | 7473 |
| an_innovative | 0.606 | 13048 |
| inexpensive | 0.605 | 10926 |
| a_more_efficient | 0.597 | 42459 |
| provide_a_simple | 0.596 | 86468 |
| scalable | 0.596 | 14958 |
| a_flexible | 0.596 | 15024 |
| efficient | 0.593 | 2805 |
| an_effective | 0.591 | 8496 |
| the_most_efficient | 0.590 | 31596 |
| highly_efficient | 0.587 | 40901 |
| a_sustainable | 0.584 | 13754 |