Aluffi's "Algebra: Chapter 0" ex. II.5.8 suggests proving that $F(A \amalg B) = F(A) * F(B)$, where $F(S)$ is a free group for a set $S$.
I managed to prove that they are isomorphic by chasing the following diagram and using universal properties where needed (and some obvious morphisms are omitted to declutter):
(sorry for the screenshot, I couldn't figure out how to get the tikz-cd environment working here).
But isomorphism does not imply equality, so how do I prove that they are equal? Or is Aluffi a bit abusing the language here, and proving isomoprhism is sufficient?


Yes, Aluffi is abusing the language and meaning $\cong$ instead of $=$.
At the same time, there is no real danger of confusion. Let me explain. In Aluffi's Algebra 0, there is never a "unique on the nose" definition of a coproduct of two groups. A coproduct $G * G'$ of two groups $G$ and $G'$ is defined in Exercise II.8.7, but the definition given there depends on presentations of $G$ and $G'$, and the result is independent on these presentations only if you treat it (or, rather, its cocone, with its maps from $G$ and from $G'$) up to isomorphism. So when he says $F\left(A \amalg B\right) = F\left(A\right) * F\left(B\right)$, the right hand side of this "equality" is only defined up to isomorphism, whence the equality must be understood as an isomorphism.
You can, of course, turn the definition of a coproduct in Exercise II.8.7 into a precise definition by picking the tautological presentations of $G$ and $G'$. (The tautological presentation of a group $G$ is the presentation which uses all elements of $G$ as generators and all entries of the multiplication table as relations.) Then, the equality $F\left(A \amalg B\right) = F\left(A\right) * F\left(B\right)$ does not hold on the nose, since the elements of the left hand side are equivalence classes of words over $\left(A \amalg B\right) \amalg \left(A \amalg B\right)^{-1}$ whereas the elements of the right hand side are equivalence classes of words over $F\left(A\right) \amalg F\left(B\right)$. So, again, you are looking for an isomorphism, not an equality in the literal sense.