I don't think statistics on this are particularly useful to an person trying to assess the difficulty of pursuing an academic career (which is what I'm assuming is the motivation for this question).
Beyond the statistics, if you examine critically the faculty in any number of math departments, you will realize that it is often rather hard to predict who will or will not get tenure. The criteria is roughly based on some unknown weighting of a person's research record, teaching performance, and ability to work and get along with colleagues (this is often called "service"). Moreover, how each of these factors is measured and judged varies a lot among different departments. The decision is also influenced by many external factors beyond the candidate's control, such as what specialties the department wants to build in, who else got tenure recently, who else will be coming up for tenure, and the department and school's overall view of who they believe they can hire and keep. For this reason even a given department might vary in how it decides on tenure from candidate to candidate and year to year.
My general advice to anyone striving for a tenured position is to develop the strongest possible record in all of the criteria I listed above. A common mistake is to focus on the things that are stressed by the school and department where your current tenure track position is. The reason that this is a mistake is that no matter how strong your record is you can always be denied tenure for reasons that are beyond your control. So you will want to be in the strongest possible position to be hired and given tenure by a different school.
I also cannot emphasize too much how much easier it is to get tenure if in addition to having good enough academic credentials (both teaching and research), you demonstrate that you show that you're someone the existing tenure faculty feel they would like to have as a colleague for the rest of their life.