MapReduce frameworks are widely used for the implementation of distributed algorithms. However, translating imperative algorithms into these frameworks requires significant structural changes to the algorithm. As the costs of running faulty algorithms at scale can be severe, it is highly desirable to verify the correctness of the translation, i.e., to prove that the MapReduce version is equivalent to the imperative original. We present a novel approach for proving equivalence between imperative and MapReduce algorithms based on partitioning the equivalence proof into a sequence of equivalence proofs between intermediate programs with smaller differences. Our approach is based on the insight that two kinds of sub-proofs are required: (1) uniform transformations changing the controlflow structure that are mostly independent of the particular context in which they are applied; and (2) context-dependent transformations that are not uniform but that preserve the overall structure and can be proved correct using coupling invariants. We demonstrate the feasibility of our approach by evaluating it on two prototypical algorithms commonly used as examples in MapReduce frameworks: k-means and PageRank. To carry out the proofs, we use the interactive theorem prover Coq with partial proof automation. The results show that our approach and its prototypical implementation based on Coq enables equivalence proofs of non-trivial algorithms and could be automated to a large degree.