I caught this odd verbiage in a leader article in The Times last week (7 June 2020). It was commenting on the outcome of the vote by Conservative members of Parliament on a motion of no confidence in party leader (and Prime Minister), Boris Johnson. It said that the people supporting the motion were 148 of his colleagues, equivalent to more than 40% of the parliamentary party.
There is no need to include equivalent to here. The 148 members are more than 48% of the parliamentary party. In fact, including equivalent to here is distinctly odd. It implies a translation of the 148 members into some other measuring scale, not just into a ratio.
If the reader feels the need for some adjective, equal would be better than equivalent. But here, even equal is unnecessary.