Similarity | Rank | |
---|---|---|
less_expensive | 0.801 | 25381 |
less_costly | 0.749 | 69576 |
more_cost-effective | 0.740 | 72275 |
more_efficient | 0.701 | 7315 |
more_expensive | 0.670 | 15821 |
cost_effective | 0.670 | 15101 |
more_affordable | 0.663 | 30101 |
more_convenient | 0.652 | 35407 |
cost-effective | 0.649 | 12088 |
cost_efficient | 0.645 | 94706 |
cheap | 0.642 | 1957 |
cost-efficient | 0.639 | 81922 |
cheap_than | 0.635 | 56432 |
more_costly | 0.635 | 72633 |
more_practical | 0.634 | 55739 |
more_reliable | 0.634 | 30134 |
be_more_expensive | 0.629 | 50628 |
more_profitable | 0.620 | 51706 |
inexpensive | 0.606 | 10926 |
more_durable | 0.602 | 71136 |
than_conventional | 0.601 | 85768 |
low_cost | 0.597 | 7473 |
environmentally_friendly | 0.588 | 19984 |
economical | 0.581 | 11589 |
a_more_efficient | 0.578 | 42459 |