equate with

USAGE SUMMARY

"equate with" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it to indicate that two things are similar or have a connection: "His success in business could easily be equated with his hard work and dedication."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

How does this equate with our sovereignty?

The New York Times

But visibility does not equate with accessibility.

The Guardian

Having a dedicated website does not equate with local success.

The Guardian

And being thin does not necessarily equate with being healthy.

The New York Times - Health

"Adding inventory doesn't always equate with increased value.

The New York Times - Sports

Therefore, wealth did not simply equate with cultural vitality.

Encyclopedia Britannica

First, rapid growth does not always equate with quality.

The Economist

Merely being "eligible" for insurance doesn't equate with being insured.

The New York Times

Still, his objectivity does not equate with a bland neutrality.

The New York Times - Books

Greater equity does equate with more spending on home improvements.

The New York Times

But completing a prison sentence does not equate with a repaid debt.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Use "equate with" to clearly establish a perceived or asserted equivalence between two distinct concepts or entities. For example: "Many people equate success with financial wealth".

Common error

Be careful not to use "equate with" when the relationship is merely an association or correlation, rather than a true equivalence. For instance, saying "High test scores equate with lifelong learning" might be an overstatement, as lifelong learning encompasses more than just test scores.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "equate with" functions as a linking verb construction, indicating a perceived or asserted equivalence between two subjects. Ludwig examples demonstrate its use in clarifying assumptions or challenging conventional associations.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

40%

Science

25%

Wiki

15%

Less common in

Formal & Business

5%

Encyclopedias

5%

Reference

5%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "equate with" is a common and grammatically correct expression used to indicate a perceived or asserted equivalence between two things. Ludwig AI confirms its validity and broad applicability across various contexts. It is frequently found in news and media, science, and wiki sources. When writing, it's crucial to use "equate with" when a genuine equivalence is intended, avoiding its use for mere associations or correlations. Related phrases include "equal with" and "associate with". Remember that while convenient, equating two things can create confusion when these things do not actually have a 1:1 relationship.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

equal with

Indicates direct equivalence; less common and slightly more formal.

associate with

Implies a connection or link, often without complete equivalence.

coincide with

Suggests events happening at the same time or aligning in a specific instance.

correspond to

Indicates a matching or analogous relationship.

correlate with

Highlights a statistical relationship or pattern of association.

liken to

Compares something to another, emphasizing similarities.

amount to

Indicates that something is equivalent to a total or result.

identify with

Focuses on a sense of shared characteristics or understanding.

compare with

Highlights the similarities between two things.

compare to

Focuses on direct comparison for similarities or differences.

FAQs

How can I use "equate with" in a sentence?

Use "equate with" to show that two things are considered to be the same or similar. For instance: "Some people "confuse with" being busy with being productive, but that is not always the case."

What are some alternatives to "equate with"?

Depending on the context, you can use alternatives like "equal with", "associate with", or "identify with".

Is it correct to say "equate to" instead of "equate with"?

"Equate with" is generally preferred when discussing the act of considering two things as equal or similar. "Equate to" is less common but may be acceptable in certain contexts where you're referring to an equivalent outcome or result.

What is the difference between "equate with" and "compare to"?

"Equate with" suggests a direct equivalence or perceived sameness, while "compare to" simply highlights similarities and differences. For example, "Don't "conflate with" these two terms."