# Enhancing Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness: A Groundbreaking Bi-Algorithm MCDM Approach +
## 3 Results and Discussion
Table 6 and Figure 9 compare the options using various decision-making techniques, including our suggested method and MOORA, VIKOR and CODAS. The results aid in the decision-making process by placing the other options in order of performance. According to our analysis using MOORA and our recommended approach, WM 4 stands out with two rankings, a first-place and third-place ranking. This result positions it at the top of the evaluation spectrum. On the other hand, WM 2 demonstrates performance as the runner-up in this context with first-place, second-place, and third-place rankings. In contrast, WM 5 consistently lags in all aspects, receiving fifth-place rankings, except for one first-place position according to the used method. This consistent under performance highlights the need for its irrelevance. Considering their weights and rankings, the remaining options are validated and supported without requiring lengthy analysis. Here are the detailed comparison results: WM 4 < WM 2 < WM 1 < WM 3 < WM 5:  
* WM1: MOORA rank--2; VIKOR rank--4; CODAS rank--3; our proposed method rank--2 (total score: \(2+4+3+2=11\));
* WM2: MOORA rank--3; VIKOR rank--2; CODAS rank--1; our proposed method rank--3 (total score: \(3+2+1+3=9\));
* WM3: MOORA rank--4; VIKOR rank--2; CODAS rank--4; our proposed method rank--4 (total score: \(4+2+4+4=14\));
* WM4: MOORA rank--1; VIKOR rank--3; CODAS rank--2; our proposed method rank--1 (total score: \(1+3+2+1=7\));
* WM5: MOORA rank--5; VIKOR rank--1; CODAS rank--5; our proposed method rank--5 (total score: \(5+1+5+5=16\)). These rankings demonstrate how our recommended strategy aligns with established methodologies like MOORA, VIKOR and CODAS. The consistent performance of WM 4 reaffirms its reliability and robustness as the choice across methods. It is important to note that these findings assist decision makers in selecting the solution based on the criteria and priorities of the problem at hand. Various decision-making techniques (MOORA, VIKOR, CODAS and our suggested method) are employed to evaluate and rank the alternatives in the comparison results presented in Table 6 and Figure 9. These techniques assess options using factors and generate rankings supporting decision making. The results indicate that WM 4 consistently outperforms all approaches. It attains the highest ranking in MOORA, third place in VIKOR, second in CODAS, and first in our suggested technique. This outcome indicates that WM 4 is a contender and one of the best choices. However, across all methods, WM 5 consistently receives low ranks. In VIKOR, it is ranked first, while it ranks fifth in CODAS, MOORA and our proposed method. These rankings imply that WM 5 is not an option and should be disregarded. The rankings of the remaining choices, WM 1, WM 2 and WM 3, vary across techniques. For example, CODAS ranks WM 2 as the best choice, VIKOR ranks it as second, while our suggested approach ranks it third, and MOORA positions it third as well. These findings indicate that WM 2 shows promise as an option, given its high ranking in the CODAS and VIKOR methodologies. Notably, the rankings produced by these methodologies offer decision makers helpful information for choosing the best option. Following the precise criteria and priorities of the decision-making problem, the rankings show the benefits and drawbacks of each solution. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **MOORA—Its Rank** & **VIKOR—Its Rank** & **CODAS—Its Rank** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Our Proposed Method—Its Rank**} \\ \hline WM 1 & 0.24838 & 2 & 0.1582 & 4 & 0.18337 & 3 & 0.80407 & 2 \\ WM 2 & 0.21146 & 3 & 0.2500 & 2 & 0.80819 & 1 & 0.78403 & 3 \\ WM 3 & 0.09378 & 4 & 0.2500 & 2 & \(-\)0.26798 & 4 & 0.52665 & 4 \\ WM 4 & 0.26384 & 1 & 0.1875 & 3 & 0.19426 & 2 & 0.92837 & 1 \\ WM 5 & \(-\)0.08701 & 5 & 0.3500 & 1 & \(-\)0.37147 & 5 & 0.18283 & 5 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison of the results with the other methods. Figure 9: Comparing the results of our proposed method with the others.