| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| most_efficient | 0.840 | 72519 |
| the_most_effective | 0.750 | 11159 |
| an_efficient | 0.710 | 16489 |
| efficient | 0.701 | 2805 |
| more_efficient | 0.668 | 7315 |
| a_more_efficient | 0.666 | 42459 |
| highly_efficient | 0.650 | 40901 |
| the_most_reliable | 0.641 | 55167 |
| most_effective | 0.621 | 18051 |
| cost_efficient | 0.620 | 94706 |
| the_most_appropriate | 0.594 | 24581 |
| a_cost-effective | 0.590 | 69744 |
| cost_effective | 0.589 | 15101 |
| the_most_convenient | 0.589 | 96003 |
| cost-effective | 0.586 | 12088 |
| very_efficient | 0.585 | 93713 |
| the_most_suitable | 0.584 | 60378 |
| high_efficiency | 0.571 | 32026 |
| cost-efficient | 0.570 | 81922 |
| the_most_profitable | 0.569 | 98319 |
| the_most_advanced | 0.567 | 25775 |
| the_well_possible | 0.567 | 35854 |
| the_most_productive | 0.566 | 62099 |
| an_effective | 0.565 | 8496 |
| the_most_innovative | 0.556 | 39291 |