For implementing 4D flow in clinical routine, standardization is important. We evaluated equivalence of 4D flow parameters in different sequences and at three different field strengths. Ten healthy volunteers were scanned at 1.5T, 3.0T and 7.0T. At 1.5T, three different sequences were applied. Ascending aorta, aortic arch and descending aorta of each scan were evaluated for diagnostic quality. After exclusion of non-diagnostic segments, equivalence testing for flow, wall shear stress and peak velocity was performed. Acceptable equivalence was determined by intra-rater analysis. Comparison of different field strengths as well as different sequences did not reach equivalence. 4D flow sequences are not interchangeable.