| 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 |