| 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 |