For a little deeper dive into the how's, on powders being "the same" based on a burning rate chart, here is some info for anyone interested.

There are a few ways to come up with a burning rate chart, and it's all dumber than you think. The first way is called the Crawford method, from the WWII era. It's a fixed-volume, bomb calorimeter. This determines the powders burn rate factor.
For any burn rate chart that is a "relative burning rate" chat, which most the reloader will see, in fact are.
Those are a combination of "what if's". It assumes the burn rate factor, energy content, and in the magically unstated standard, the progressivity of the powder.

There is actually a wonderful description of this in the Norma manual from 2013. There is a very heavy pressure gun which fires the standard cartridge and charge of powder. Then every other powder is fired in that same cartridge, and bullet. The pressure recorded and assigned a number. Anything with more pressure gets assigned a "faster" burning number; anything lower pressure gets a "slower" burning rate assignment.

Bofors at least at one time, had their standard, as the 308 with 146gr bullet and 43.2gr IMR4350. At some point they won't test anything "faster" as it's simply a bomb. Can you imagine 43.2gr of bullseye in the 308?!🤯🤯

As we all know, volume changes burning rates, especially with the progressive powders. So simply using one standard cartridge, which is almost never disclosed within the industry; Then assigning a relative value across all tested. That really doesn't tell you much at all, about what the powder actually does or can do, in any given situation.
Moreover, manuals essentially never state whether or not they actually pressure tested the data, or if they reprinted supplied data, when that data was tested, what lot numbers were tested, or if the data was simply calculated.

Many of you may remember something like 15 years ago, when Hodgdon suddenly pulled all data from their website for Winchester powder. That was due to contact negotiations. Olin was supposed to supply data for products they don't make, and Hodgdon was too publish and distribute the Winchester brand name. Right/wrong/indifferent, Hodgdon at one point claimed the previously supplied data was so old, they didn't feel comfortable publishing any more. Corporate negotiations being what they are, you may read into that anything you like.

The greater thing to not lose sight of, is that the reloader is the waste market for gunpowder; and standards on blended garbage aren't stated.

Cheers