In this paper, I evaluate the claim that the equivalence of multiple intensionally distinct definitions of random sequence provides evidence for the claim that these definitions capture the intuitive conception of randomness, concluding that the former claim is false. I then develop an alternative account of the significance of randomness-theoretic equivalence results, arguing that they are instances of a phenomenon I refer to as schematic equivalence. On my account, this alternative approach has the virtue of providing the plurality of definitions (...) of randomness with conceptual unity and a rationale for certain investigations that are carried out in the field. (shrink)