| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| at_low_cost | 0.838 | 43994 |
| low_cost | 0.719 | 7473 |
| reduce_cost | 0.675 | 15420 |
| at_a_fraction_of_the | 0.670 | 68098 |
| at_an_affordable_price_. | 0.643 | 87167 |
| a_low_cost | 0.628 | 52787 |
| a_low_price | 0.621 | 47936 |
| at_low_price | 0.608 | 84536 |
| less_expensive | 0.604 | 25381 |
| more_cost-effective | 0.603 | 72275 |
| cheaply | 0.598 | 44617 |
| less_costly | 0.590 | 69576 |
| more_affordable | 0.586 | 30101 |
| at_affordable_price | 0.582 | 86876 |
| cost_effective | 0.581 | 15101 |
| more_efficiently | 0.571 | 19634 |
| low-cost | 0.570 | 15096 |
| cost-effective | 0.564 | 12088 |
| cost-efficient | 0.562 | 81922 |
| more_economical | 0.558 | 84513 |
| a_low-cost | 0.558 | 67746 |
| great_efficiency | 0.557 | 84913 |
| affordable_price | 0.547 | 69228 |
| at_affordable_price_. | 0.541 | 65387 |
| affordable | 0.539 | 3667 |