| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| cost-efficient | 0.884 | 44027 |
| cost-effective | 0.836 | 8865 |
| efficiently | 0.760 | 5313 |
| Efficient | 0.757 | 25811 |
| economical | 0.750 | 8601 |
| efficiency | 0.743 | 2593 |
| effective | 0.734 | 706 |
| reliable | 0.733 | 2758 |
| energy-efficient | 0.720 | 24948 |
| user-friendly | 0.702 | 15098 |
| environment-friendly | 0.702 | 74445 |
| cost-effectively | 0.700 | 51674 |
| trouble-free | 0.700 | 45649 |
| inefficient | 0.699 | 16136 |
| robust | 0.698 | 5652 |
| dependable | 0.696 | 12155 |
| scalable | 0.692 | 17522 |
| maintainable | 0.685 | 70440 |
| environmentally-friendly | 0.681 | 47015 |
| efficiencies | 0.681 | 16247 |
| environmentally | 0.679 | 8558 |
| simpler | 0.678 | 7156 |
| high-efficiency | 0.666 | 53165 |
| hassle-free | 0.664 | 25973 |
| feasible | 0.654 | 8722 |