The short answer is "no"...and Dirac can't do what RP does, either!
The systems just have different goals and outcomes. Dirac's primary goal is to fit a measured listening position response to a target curve. (Dirac is not alone there: ARC, Audyssey, GLM, MA-1, Trinnov all follow the same general approach, though obviously GLM and MA-1 have a leg up in that they "know" the base performance of the loudspeakers.) Generally IME it performs well at that task, though measurement protocols have IMO gotten buggier over time and the frustration factor has risen. (Some of that may be due to computer OS changes as well, in fairness to Dirac.) The biggest determinant of perceived success with Dirac (assuming successful measurements) is the user's choice of target curve. Also there's some question if full band correction based on listening area response is the correct approach (see, e.g. Toole,
Sound Reproduction, Section 5.7.3), though with good loudspeakers reasonably placed and a reasonable listening position I've found it doesn't actually matter much. There won't be much correction above the transition frequency anyway. Dirac IMO doesn't really become great until DLBC, because what it can do (given certain constraints, such as sufficient headroom in each individual subwoofer) really improves evenness at the listening position and around the room. And bass smoothness is really IMO the whole point of room correction.
RP's aim, by contrast, is not to fit the speakers' listening position response to some curve, but rather to map out the room relative to the loudspeakers (as determined by a scan at the listening position) and apply processing to mitigate the colorations from the room. RP is also designed to work with a novel system system setup concept: on wall speakers with "boundary subs," put another way, an evolution of Roy Allison's placement concepts using DSP. (Dirac ART will also shine in such configurations.) It's doable, if you have the time windows needed to set up measurement equipment, take a bunch of measurements, analyze, listen, and start over again.
I tried. I ended up throwing in the towel because I wanted to spent time listening rather than optimizing, and bought something with DLBC. Maybe 20 minutes of measurements (2 mains, 5 subs), maybe 30 minutes of tweaking crossover points and bass shelf on screen, and done.
Subjectively, IMO the choice between base Dirac and RP favors RP in most cases. RP integrates subs (with a number of different options) and basic Dirac is Wild West on that hugely important aspect of in-room performance. However, the choice between DLBC and RP is less clear cut. You need to have more patience to use DLBC, but DLBC is an order of magnitude or four less time and effort compared to manual multisub setup. I will say that TDAI-1120 may not have been such a no-brainer for me for the guest room had NAD lived up to their promises and equipped their little M10 with DLBC.