'Anatomy of a Fall' ranks as "most cost-effective" Oscar nominated film

While big-budget movies like Killers of the Flower Moon and Oppenheimer were well-represented in terms of nominations for the upcoming 96th Academy Awards, a new ranking of the Best Picture nominees shows money isn't everything.

The website CSGOLuck compared budget data from IMDb on this year's Best Picture hopefuls, to find out which of the acclaimed films got the most bang for their proverbial buck.

With a budget of around $6.6 million, Anatomy of a Fall earned five Oscar nominations, including Best Actress for Sandra Hüller. It also earned the title of most cost-effective Best Picture hopeful, according to the entertainment website.

In second place was The Holdovers: With a budget of $10 million, it also scored five nominations, including a Best Actor nom for Paul Giamatti.

In third place was The Zone of Interest: Its $15 million budget translated into five nominations.

Fourth place went to Poor Things: The offbeat comedy starring and produced by Best Actress nominee Emma Stone received 11 nominations from its $35 million production budget.

Rounding out the top five most cost-effective Best Picture nominees according to the site was American Fiction. The $20 million film earned five Oscar noms, including Best Actor for Jeffrey Wright.

By contrast, Oppenheimer might have led the pack of this year's nominations with 13, but with a reported budget of $100 million, it placed eighth on the ranking.

While Barbie earned seven Oscar nominations, including one for supporting actor Ryan Gosling, its production budget was also $100 million, placing it ninth on the listing.

Martin Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon earned 10 nominations, but it reportedly cost $200 million to make, placing it last on the most cost-effective Top 10.