Not sure about that one, they are at least in one way similar - in that the products weigh less than the reactants, as previous post noted.
And in another way, much like chemical reactions, it is the binding energies, not the components themselves, that change.
The binding energies of the daughter nuclei are fractionally higher than the fuel nucleus.
All the particles are conserved*.
So, even nuclear reactors don't exactly "convert matter (or mass) to energy" - as in the annihilation of whole particles, let alone "back to future" direct annihilation of garbage into stupendous energy.
* some of the neutron flux that sustains the chain reaction will NOT be captured in the surrounding materials and will then decay (in ~1/4 hour) into a proton, electron, neutrino - but the "hadron number" - (protons+neutrons) is the same. Think of a neutron as a bound proton+electron that is unstable in "air" - i.e. outside a nucleus.
Further caveats below, more for interest than for proof.
OK, there might be side-reactions where daughter nuclei decay through beta+ process, and the positron will annihilate with a nearby electron - that ## would## be direct conversion of mass to energy.
However, B+ decay is only favourable for neutron-light isotopes, and daughters of fission are naturally neutron-rich. I think that's the right way round, could be wrong.
If you're really picky, or just interested, yes, in beta decay, there is an antineutrino, 0.3eV or less.
It might then annihilate with a "proper" neutrino, making a direct conversion of matter to energy - but this would be in a distant galaxy, due to the vanishingly low "cross sections" - reaction probabilities - of neutrinos generally. Actually, maybe not at all, there are arguments that the neutrino is its own antiparticle, a "Majorana" particle - though this is unproven. It would mean that there is no annihilation.