| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| low_cost | 0.792 | 7473 |
| a_low-cost | 0.789 | 67746 |
| low-cost | 0.714 | 15096 |
| an_inexpensive | 0.700 | 61517 |
| an_affordable | 0.697 | 35923 |
| a_cost-effective | 0.668 | 69744 |
| inexpensive | 0.658 | 10926 |
| less_expensive | 0.637 | 25381 |
| at_a_low_cost | 0.628 | 57241 |
| cost_effective | 0.625 | 15101 |
| more_cost-effective | 0.604 | 72275 |
| at_low_cost | 0.595 | 43994 |
| cheap | 0.592 | 1957 |
| more_affordable | 0.590 | 30101 |
| cost-effective | 0.589 | 12088 |
| cost_efficient | 0.578 | 94706 |
| less_costly | 0.576 | 69576 |
| affordable | 0.563 | 3667 |
| cost-efficient | 0.557 | 81922 |
| more_economical | 0.556 | 84513 |
| reduce_cost | 0.553 | 15420 |
| a_portable | 0.550 | 38039 |
| very_cheap | 0.548 | 94283 |
| a_scalable | 0.534 | 93692 |
| a_high_quality | 0.534 | 15118 |