Not in the same league. Rbsd sets a really low bar though. Because it is set up so you never see your instructor go live on anyone.
Which inherently adds a lot of myth to the concepts. And changes the way people think about the subject. Which essentially breaks the process.
To fight well you really need to use scientific method ask the question then test it.
Rather than story based which is ask the question and get a tale of how it worked for someone else under other conditions.
It would be unethical to scientifically test, in full, edged-weapon work, blunt weapon, and pre-emption work.
That is why you have to find instructors who've done it for real, or learned from people that have done for real--which makes it hard to learn, and allows instructors to charge more, because they know how rare and inaccessible people with their knowledge are. You are paying because of supply and demand, and because of lessons that people almost died learning.
The vast majority of RBSD, rests on pre-emption and detecting pre-violence cues, which is what sets it apart from the rest. You have to use surprise, speed, and greater violence of action than your opponent.
If you did not anticipate the attack to at least some degeree, then you have already lost.
In Libre (Scott Babb), with their sparring, they train taking turns as the aggressor. The defender has to learn to recongnize when to react, and "beat them to the punch." They can't scientifically test the consequences of stabs, but they know enough from documented instances, and experiences in both the street and deployed overseas, how that will go.
You can scientifically test aspects of RBSD, separately, but not as a whole.
