| Similarity | Rank | |
|---|---|---|
| inexpensive | 0.826 | 5701 |
| affordable | 0.805 | 2395 |
| cost-effective | 0.804 | 8865 |
| low-priced | 0.782 | 30811 |
| Low-cost | 0.779 | 65611 |
| cost-efficient | 0.776 | 44027 |
| lower-cost | 0.756 | 60788 |
| economical | 0.739 | 8601 |
| Cost-effective | 0.710 | 95459 |
| cheaper | 0.702 | 3859 |
| alternative | 0.693 | 1513 |
| high-quality | 0.684 | 7274 |
| budget-friendly | 0.683 | 65613 |
| costlier | 0.670 | 57014 |
| hassle-free | 0.669 | 25973 |
| no-cost | 0.668 | 56280 |
| lower-priced | 0.665 | 86577 |
| affordably | 0.661 | 46841 |
| environment-friendly | 0.657 | 74445 |
| feasible | 0.657 | 8722 |
| alternatives | 0.653 | 4617 |
| highly-priced | 0.653 | 60858 |
| high-priced | 0.653 | 27188 |
| expensive | 0.646 | 1462 |
| ecofriendly | 0.644 | 97170 |