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 |