No. He was far closer to what a Soviet chairman would become in the 20th century than the fascists of the 20th century. He was the de facto head of a council of other prominent revolutionary leaders, not a solitary military-backed strongman like a Franco or Mussolini or Hitler (Napoleon would be closer to this). Robespierre's position was never as secure or dominant as the fascist leaders of the 20th century, and more in line with the near-constant tension and uncertainty that Soviet chairmen faced. Similarly, their remaining in power was largely dependent on how their loyalty to the revolutionary cause was viewed by their fellow council members, who were always jockeying for the top spot. Robespierre came to power because he was seen as being the most pure and ardent revolutionary, and he lost power because he was no longer seen as being that. Such a thing did not occur with the fascist regimes of the 20th century. Both fascist and communist regimes purged political enemies like Robespierre's regime did, but Robespierre's rationale for this was always hidden behind a thin veil of 'purity of heart' and devotion to the cause of the revolution. This bears a closer similarity to the communist rationale than the fascist one, which barely ever disguised its purges behind ideological - and much less revolutionary - goals. Obviously it needs to be stated that neither fascism nor communism existed as concepts in the 18th century, so on a literal and technical level Robespierre could be neither of those things knowingly, although some Marxists in the late 19th century and early 20th century did view Robespierre as an early champion of the lower classes and enemy of the aristocracy.

Robespierre bears a more accurate resemblance to a certain 14th century Flemish revolutionary (whose name escapes me at the moment) who overthrew the duke and established an oligarchic republic, being the head of a council of like-minded revolutionaries and revoking the privileges of the aristocracy.