I've never seen an organization both credibly claim that their tracks had equivalent benefits (e.g. similar compensation), and also have comparable leveling requirements for both tracks. The bar for going up the management track is always lower.
The difference at some companies is so stark that they sometimes feel the need to justify it with statements like "the title of fellow is reserved for truly world class engineers with a lifetime of achievement and wide-reaching industry acclaim" when no such requirement exists anywhere up the management ladder, including (and sometimes especially) in the C-suite.
Management is essentially gaslighting you into thinking that you're not as valuable as they are unless you're Linus Torvalds. That's a level at which any comparison is obviously laughable, but the break-even point is usually far lower than this, and the organization wants to do everything it can to keep you from figuring that out. The majority of highly paid managers at large companies simply don't provide much value compared to a reasonably productive engineer. The concept of an "equivalent technical track" is a bone they throw at you so that you don't rage quit.
So looking at this strictly as a numbers game, you're almost always worse off on the technical track. That doesn't mean you should go into management -- I just think it's important to know the true costs when making this sort of choice.