Is the IRR the annual equivalent return on a given investment?

I read this somewhere but how can this be the case considering the fact that the IRR is the breakeven rate?
Thanks

IRR is indeed the annual equivalent return on a given investment, discounting future cash flows in order to consider the time value of money.
IRR equals the % return which will make your present value equal to zero.
One of IRR's flaws as a stand-alone financial measure is that it does not show you absolute figures. That is, an investment showing an IRR of 50% sounds impressive, however it may be available for a $100 investment only (and perhaps you have $100,000 to invest). . At the same time, an investment with an IRR of 30% but requiring initial funds of $100,000 would definitely prove a better option than the first one mentioned.
That said, I've found practical to use three basic measures when evaluating investment opportunities: Net Present Value, IRR, and Payback (how many years to recover your investment).
Your IRR should be higher than your cost of capital (your cost of capital in real terms should equal your cost of getting funding -e.g.bank loan interest rate- or, if you have the funds available, what your second best investment option would yield -e.g.a 10-yr US Treasury bond).

IRR is the break even rate. It need not be the same as the annual return. As a rule of thumb, if the expected return exceed IRR, we should invest. Otherwise, we shouldn't. If they're the same, in the absence of a better investment, we're indifferent.