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 |