| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| less_costly | 0.871 | 69576 |
| more_expensive | 0.813 | 15821 |
| more_economical | 0.801 | 84513 |
| more_affordable | 0.797 | 30101 |
| more_cost-effective | 0.780 | 72275 |
| cheap | 0.761 | 1957 |
| more_costly | 0.761 | 72633 |
| be_more_expensive | 0.745 | 50628 |
| cheap_than | 0.741 | 56432 |
| inexpensive | 0.713 | 10926 |
| be_cheap_than | 0.681 | 74092 |
| low_cost | 0.671 | 7473 |
| more_efficient | 0.671 | 7315 |
| more_convenient | 0.653 | 35407 |
| it_be_cheap | 0.649 | 47659 |
| more_durable | 0.644 | 71136 |
| cost_effective | 0.642 | 15101 |
| a_low_cost | 0.637 | 52787 |
| more_reliable | 0.637 | 30134 |
| cost-effective | 0.629 | 12088 |
| expensive | 0.628 | 4273 |
| pricey | 0.628 | 35908 |
| cost_more | 0.625 | 44255 |
| cost-efficient | 0.621 | 81922 |
| an_inexpensive | 0.617 | 61517 |