| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| cost_effective | 0.891 | 15101 |
| cost-efficient | 0.851 | 81922 |
| cost_efficient | 0.800 | 94706 |
| a_cost-effective | 0.792 | 69744 |
| more_cost-effective | 0.751 | 72275 |
| efficient | 0.731 | 2805 |
| affordable | 0.705 | 3667 |
| inexpensive | 0.699 | 10926 |
| scalable | 0.678 | 14958 |
| reliable | 0.676 | 3190 |
| low-cost | 0.676 | 15096 |
| less_costly | 0.667 | 69576 |
| low_cost | 0.652 | 7473 |
| more_economical | 0.649 | 84513 |
| user-friendly | 0.634 | 21921 |
| highly_efficient | 0.632 | 40901 |
| less_expensive | 0.629 | 25381 |
| more_efficient | 0.620 | 7315 |
| environmentally_sound | 0.616 | 91157 |
| feasible | 0.614 | 16338 |
| effective | 0.613 | 1124 |
| a_low-cost | 0.610 | 67746 |
| economically_viable | 0.607 | 75780 |
| innovative | 0.601 | 2313 |
| replicable | 0.599 | 77622 |