| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| low_cost | 0.819 | 7473 |
| a_low-cost | 0.803 | 67746 |
| inexpensive | 0.790 | 10926 |
| a_low_cost | 0.714 | 52787 |
| affordable | 0.694 | 3667 |
| cost-effective | 0.676 | 12088 |
| cheap | 0.673 | 1957 |
| cost-efficient | 0.662 | 81922 |
| cost_effective | 0.649 | 15101 |
| an_inexpensive | 0.648 | 61517 |
| a_cost-effective | 0.640 | 69744 |
| an_affordable | 0.626 | 35923 |
| more_affordable | 0.619 | 30101 |
| at_low_cost | 0.602 | 43994 |
| less_expensive | 0.600 | 25381 |
| very_cheap | 0.578 | 94283 |
| at_a_low_cost | 0.570 | 57241 |
| provide_affordable | 0.570 | 95082 |
| reasonably_price | 0.568 | 55852 |
| high-quality | 0.565 | 8965 |
| cost_efficient | 0.560 | 94706 |
| scalable | 0.560 | 14958 |
| more_cost-effective | 0.553 | 72275 |
| widely_available | 0.552 | 65913 |
| low-tech | 0.549 | 78478 |