| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| efficient | 0.773 | 2805 |
| very_efficient | 0.720 | 93713 |
| high_efficiency | 0.713 | 32026 |
| an_efficient | 0.703 | 16489 |
| cost-efficient | 0.663 | 81922 |
| the_most_efficient | 0.650 | 31596 |
| cost-effective | 0.632 | 12088 |
| more_efficient | 0.628 | 7315 |
| cost_efficient | 0.624 | 94706 |
| energy-efficient | 0.618 | 52317 |
| high-performance | 0.618 | 27703 |
| energy_efficient | 0.610 | 29579 |
| highly_effective | 0.595 | 35554 |
| cost_effective | 0.594 | 15101 |
| a_more_efficient | 0.594 | 42459 |
| a_cost-effective | 0.587 | 69744 |
| environmentally_friendly | 0.585 | 19984 |
| high_performance | 0.584 | 12154 |
| scalable | 0.581 | 14958 |
| versatile | 0.575 | 11816 |
| most_efficient | 0.574 | 72519 |
| environmentally-friendly | 0.568 | 98360 |
| state-of-the-art | 0.552 | 13114 |
| multifunctional | 0.551 | 60873 |
| efficiency_of | 0.551 | 5753 |