Similarity | Rank | |
---|---|---|
an_efficient | 0.809 | 16489 |
highly_efficient | 0.773 | 40901 |
more_efficient | 0.754 | 7315 |
very_efficient | 0.745 | 93713 |
cost-effective | 0.731 | 12088 |
cost-efficient | 0.721 | 81922 |
reliable | 0.718 | 3190 |
cost_efficient | 0.708 | 94706 |
cost_effective | 0.707 | 15101 |
the_most_efficient | 0.701 | 31596 |
a_more_efficient | 0.699 | 42459 |
effective | 0.683 | 1124 |
most_efficient | 0.665 | 72519 |
dependable | 0.658 | 21638 |
robust | 0.630 | 5571 |
responsive | 0.621 | 9533 |
scalable | 0.620 | 14958 |
more_effective | 0.619 | 8517 |
user-friendly | 0.615 | 21921 |
user_friendly | 0.594 | 26839 |
an_effective | 0.593 | 8496 |
a_cost-effective | 0.593 | 69744 |
and_easy_to_use | 0.593 | 20816 |
speedy | 0.593 | 24408 |
efficient_use_of | 0.589 | 73825 |