Similarity | Rank | |
---|---|---|
cost-effective | 0.851 | 12088 |
cost_effective | 0.802 | 15101 |
cost_efficient | 0.801 | 94706 |
a_cost-effective | 0.747 | 69744 |
efficient | 0.721 | 2805 |
more_cost-effective | 0.714 | 72275 |
inexpensive | 0.671 | 10926 |
scalable | 0.670 | 14958 |
highly_efficient | 0.663 | 40901 |
low-cost | 0.662 | 15096 |
less_costly | 0.645 | 69576 |
more_efficient | 0.643 | 7315 |
more_economical | 0.639 | 84513 |
user-friendly | 0.637 | 21921 |
low_cost | 0.637 | 7473 |
environmentally_sound | 0.633 | 91157 |
affordable | 0.628 | 3667 |
reliable | 0.627 | 3190 |
less_expensive | 0.621 | 25381 |
environmentally_friendly | 0.611 | 19984 |
innovative | 0.610 | 2313 |
an_efficient | 0.609 | 16489 |
energy-efficient | 0.609 | 52317 |
energy_efficient | 0.607 | 29579 |
a_scalable | 0.607 | 93692 |