| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| cost-effective | 0.891 | 12088 |
| cost_efficient | 0.831 | 94706 |
| cost-efficient | 0.802 | 81922 |
| a_cost-effective | 0.762 | 69744 |
| more_cost-effective | 0.744 | 72275 |
| efficient | 0.707 | 2805 |
| inexpensive | 0.698 | 10926 |
| low_cost | 0.696 | 7473 |
| affordable | 0.692 | 3667 |
| more_economical | 0.670 | 84513 |
| less_costly | 0.662 | 69576 |
| scalable | 0.654 | 14958 |
| low-cost | 0.649 | 15096 |
| less_expensive | 0.642 | 25381 |
| reliable | 0.631 | 3190 |
| user_friendly | 0.626 | 26839 |
| a_low_cost | 0.625 | 52787 |
| economically_viable | 0.622 | 75780 |
| and_easy_to_use | 0.620 | 20816 |
| user-friendly | 0.619 | 21921 |
| easy_to_use | 0.613 | 14474 |
| environmentally_sound | 0.609 | 91157 |
| feasible | 0.609 | 16338 |
| more_efficient | 0.605 | 7315 |
| economical | 0.603 | 11589 |