| 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 |