As someone has already responded, yes, there is an equivalent.
However, having used both systems, I have one nitpicky item of caution. With Shimano, when you drop down from the big to the little ring (in either syncro mode), the Shimano shift logic waits for a few moments for the chain to drop down into the little ring before it drops the cogs in the rear. When shifting up to the big ring, the Shimano shift logic simultaneously shifts up to the big ring and to the larger cogs. With SRAM, the timing of the shifts is the opposite. Dropping into the small ring and moving down the rear block to smaller cogs in the “sequential” or “semi-sequential” mode happens simultaneously. On the other hand, there is a slight delay between the shift up to the big ring in the front and the accompanying shift to larger cogs in the rear.
Why does this matter, you may ask? When dropping to smaller ring/cogs simultaneously (SRAM), there is a lot of tension being taken out of the chain all at once, “on both ends,” so to speak. In my experience, this increases the risk of a dropped chain when compared to Shimano’s shift logic. Presumably, Shimano handles it differently for this very reason. I am not sure why SRAM decided on this logic, unless it was to avoid some sort of patent infringement on Shimano’s system. When it comes to syncro/sequential shifting, I preferred Shimano’s, and regularly used “semi-syncro.” I no longer use sequential with SRAM.
This may seem nitpicky, but it stood out to me upon switching systems.