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 |