Not exactly.
In Nixon's case, some lower level republican operatives staged an actual break in to the Democratic party campaign HQ in the Watergate hotel, as in actual breaking and entering with no pretext or cover. Nixon may (or may not have) known about it and/or ordered, but he CERTAINLY helped cover it up, and that's what nearly got him impeached and forced him to resign. Breaking and entering is an explicit crime, and thus, covering it up is compounding the crime.
In this case Schiff used his investigation to subpoena the phone records those involved. The companies who provided the records to him had to comply or risk being held in Contempt of Congress. They likely could have fought the demand in the courts, but their cost/benefit analysis likely came out that it would be cheaper and less risky in the long run to simply comply, as if they resisted they risked being seen as a "Trump Ally" by the Democrats and even if they WON the resulting court case, the Dems likely would take future punitive actions against them (and winning was hardly a sure thing, Congress' subpoena power is VERY broad and while Nune's records are likely outside the scope Schiff would has good case for the others as part of his investigation). Meanwhile if they comply it is unlikely the Republicans would take punitive actions against them as a lot of Republicans would just excuse them as simply following the law and would be more outraged at Schiff for making the demand than at them for complying with it.
It is still sleazy as fuck and Schiff should be ejected from Congress for his abuse of the Congressional subpoena power, but it's not really the same thing as Watergate.