| 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 |