| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| more_efficient | 0.793 | 7315 |
| an_efficient | 0.736 | 16489 |
| efficient | 0.699 | 2805 |
| more_effective | 0.668 | 8517 |
| the_most_efficient | 0.666 | 31596 |
| great_efficiency | 0.658 | 84913 |
| increase_efficiency | 0.652 | 26264 |
| improve_efficiency | 0.645 | 31393 |
| more_cost-effective | 0.643 | 72275 |
| an_improve | 0.630 | 23083 |
| a_more_flexible | 0.628 | 95010 |
| a_more_sustainable | 0.620 | 96942 |
| less_costly | 0.607 | 69576 |
| more_efficiently | 0.602 | 19634 |
| a_cost-effective | 0.597 | 69744 |
| a_more_robust | 0.596 | 78763 |
| more_responsive | 0.594 | 85647 |
| highly_efficient | 0.594 | 40901 |
| cost-efficient | 0.589 | 81922 |
| cost_efficient | 0.585 | 94706 |
| more_productive | 0.584 | 27169 |
| more_economical | 0.578 | 84513 |
| streamlined | 0.574 | 32429 |
| more_innovative | 0.572 | 79826 |
| an_effective | 0.571 | 8496 |