| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| less_expensive | 0.871 | 25381 |
| more_cost-effective | 0.800 | 72275 |
| more_economical | 0.749 | 84513 |
| more_costly | 0.745 | 72633 |
| more_efficient | 0.731 | 7315 |
| more_affordable | 0.707 | 30101 |
| more_expensive | 0.706 | 15821 |
| cost-effective | 0.667 | 12088 |
| more_effective | 0.666 | 8517 |
| cost_effective | 0.662 | 15101 |
| cheap | 0.652 | 1957 |
| more_durable | 0.651 | 71136 |
| inexpensive | 0.646 | 10926 |
| cost-efficient | 0.645 | 81922 |
| be_more_expensive | 0.644 | 50628 |
| more_reliable | 0.641 | 30134 |
| more_convenient | 0.640 | 35407 |
| cost_efficient | 0.638 | 94706 |
| than_traditional | 0.627 | 55995 |
| low_cost | 0.621 | 7473 |
| than_conventional | 0.619 | 85768 |
| cheap_than | 0.614 | 56432 |
| more_profitable | 0.612 | 51706 |
| more_practical | 0.610 | 55739 |
| a_more_efficient | 0.607 | 42459 |