| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| low-cost | 0.803 | 15096 |
| a_low_cost | 0.789 | 52787 |
| an_inexpensive | 0.753 | 61517 |
| a_cost-effective | 0.726 | 69744 |
| an_affordable | 0.714 | 35923 |
| low_cost | 0.705 | 7473 |
| inexpensive | 0.676 | 10926 |
| cost-effective | 0.610 | 12088 |
| a_scalable | 0.608 | 93692 |
| a_portable | 0.605 | 38039 |
| cost-efficient | 0.593 | 81922 |
| cost_effective | 0.584 | 15101 |
| an_innovative | 0.579 | 13048 |
| affordable | 0.575 | 3667 |
| a_modular | 0.564 | 75098 |
| more_cost-effective | 0.559 | 72275 |
| less_expensive | 0.558 | 25381 |
| at_a_low_cost | 0.558 | 57241 |
| a_simple | 0.555 | 3183 |
| more_affordable | 0.551 | 30101 |
| easy-to-use | 0.549 | 29712 |
| cheap | 0.547 | 1957 |
| a_high-quality | 0.537 | 42884 |
| at_low_cost | 0.534 | 43994 |
| a_reliable | 0.532 | 13764 |