Nope.
can we say naka is as good as magnus

Probably, Magnus is more consistent though.
Nakamura is very unpredictable. Occasionally he plays rediculous openings other top players would never touch, which may bring his results down a bit. Hes very much in the same boat as ivanchuk in that he will either player like carlsen or better, or will play far below the rest of the top 10.
Whether you can claim Carlsen is better based on his consistency I do not know.

They are both interesting in different ways. Neither one plays the correct move through the game's first fifteen moves, but both do well after such risks. Nakamura plays high-risk unsound openings. Carlsen plays mediocre openings that give him a playable middlegame. Neither one is (yet) equal to the true masters of the ending: Capablanca, Smyslov, Karpov, Kramnik.
Neither one is (yet) equal to the true masters of the ending: Capablanca, Smyslov, Karpov, Kramnik.
I wouldn't lump Carlsen in at the "weaker in the endgame than Kramnik and in the same group as Nakamura in that respect"-level. I often see it stated that Carlsen is not Kramnik's level in the endgame, but I'm far from convinced. In all the five-six endgames between Carlsen and Kramnik I looked closer at Carlsen was clearly more convincing.
In general I think people evaluate players of the past more generously, while today someone like Carlsen is evaluated more based on one bad game than on a dozen good ones. For example Smyslov had much more time, lots of adjournments with analysis help during the endgames, few top tournaments, and longer between the starts. Still, just imagine how it would sound if Carlsen played 59. ... b2 here, and what the hordes of tablebase equipped followers would say of his endgame skills:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1125504
now, overall..... nakamura= carlsen
he is at least = to magnus in endgame