Because it employs an emergent‐learning framework, equivalence‐based instruction (EBI) is said to be highly efficient, but its presumed benefits must be compared quantitatively with alternative techniques. In a randomized controlled trial, 61 college students attempted to learn 32 pairs of proprietary and generic drug names using computer‐based match‐to‐sample presentations of auditory and written drug names. Students who received EBI experienced pairings based on stimulus equivalence theory, and they mastered the material quickly. Control‐group students practiced relations drawn at random from those that the EBI group learned via training or emergence. Students in the criterion‐control group required many more trials to achieve the same accuracy as the EBI group. By way of a yoking procedure, students in the trial‐control group received the same number of trials as the EBI students but achieved poorer accuracy and little mastery. Thus, EBI was more efficient and effective than unstructured presentation.