| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| cost-effective | 0.973 | 8865 |
| efficient | 0.884 | 2049 |
| cost-effectively | 0.834 | 51674 |
| economical | 0.796 | 8601 |
| scalable | 0.783 | 17522 |
| low-cost | 0.776 | 11460 |
| affordable | 0.752 | 2395 |
| Cost-effective | 0.752 | 95459 |
| cost-saving | 0.751 | 56693 |
| affordably | 0.745 | 46841 |
| hassle-free | 0.742 | 25973 |
| future-proof | 0.741 | 89543 |
| reliable | 0.735 | 2758 |
| feasible | 0.734 | 8722 |
| environmentally-friendly | 0.731 | 47015 |
| user-friendly | 0.730 | 15098 |
| environment-friendly | 0.726 | 74445 |
| inexpensive | 0.723 | 5701 |
| cost-savings | 0.719 | 85880 |
| efficiencies | 0.715 | 16247 |
| effective | 0.712 | 706 |
| energy-efficient | 0.712 | 24948 |
| best-in-class | 0.708 | 41489 |
| solutions | 0.707 | 1246 |
| feature-rich | 0.706 | 57469 |