| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| low-cost | 0.819 | 15096 |
| a_low_cost | 0.792 | 52787 |
| at_low_cost | 0.734 | 43994 |
| reduce_cost | 0.726 | 15420 |
| inexpensive | 0.724 | 10926 |
| at_a_low_cost | 0.719 | 57241 |
| a_low-cost | 0.705 | 67746 |
| cheap | 0.697 | 1957 |
| cost_effective | 0.696 | 15101 |
| low_price | 0.672 | 11233 |
| less_expensive | 0.671 | 25381 |
| cost-effective | 0.652 | 12088 |
| affordable | 0.642 | 3667 |
| more_affordable | 0.637 | 30101 |
| cost-efficient | 0.637 | 81922 |
| high_cost | 0.636 | 23056 |
| more_cost-effective | 0.630 | 72275 |
| less_costly | 0.621 | 69576 |
| competitive_price | 0.620 | 96515 |
| cost_reduction | 0.618 | 37456 |
| cost_efficiency | 0.616 | 76154 |
| high_efficiency | 0.614 | 32026 |
| cost_effectiveness | 0.609 | 58138 |
| cost_efficient | 0.607 | 94706 |
| a_cost-effective | 0.607 | 69744 |