Similarity | Rank | |
---|---|---|
cost_effective | 0.831 | 15101 |
cost-efficient | 0.801 | 81922 |
cost-effective | 0.800 | 12088 |
a_cost-effective | 0.728 | 69744 |
more_cost-effective | 0.711 | 72275 |
efficient | 0.708 | 2805 |
more_economical | 0.645 | 84513 |
less_costly | 0.638 | 69576 |
more_efficient | 0.625 | 7315 |
highly_efficient | 0.624 | 40901 |
scalable | 0.622 | 14958 |
the_most_efficient | 0.620 | 31596 |
low_cost | 0.607 | 7473 |
less_expensive | 0.605 | 25381 |
an_efficient | 0.603 | 16489 |
environmentally_friendly | 0.602 | 19984 |
environmentally_sound | 0.600 | 91157 |
energy_efficient | 0.599 | 29579 |
economically_viable | 0.597 | 75780 |
inexpensive | 0.592 | 10926 |
affordable | 0.590 | 3667 |
a_more_efficient | 0.585 | 42459 |
most_efficient | 0.582 | 72519 |
user_friendly | 0.582 | 26839 |
economical | 0.580 | 11589 |