A lot? I disagree.
Ad-blocking is mainly concerned with hiding unwanted static page elements (frames, images, media), and not even all of them, for those using ad-blockers with a so-called acceptable ad policy.
Tracking protection is focused on third-party scripts, i.e. blocking certain (not all) scripts that are loaded from sites other than the one the user is interacting with. In that respect, it covers a very small subset of what uMatrix and NoScript set out to do.
But neither NoScript nor uMatrix are ad-blockers: they do something different thing, in fact both uMatrix and NoScript can co-exist with uBlock Origin.
- In-Browser Network Filtering - fine-grained control over who can run scripts, XHR, start downloads and media, fetch fonts, access cookies/storage (and whatever else I may have forgot), and where
(e.g. you can have Facebook partly unblocked on Facebook dot com, and blocked everywhere else)
- Ad-blocking - hides static content (ads) on the web, more sophisticated software like uBlock Origin can also block (but can do that because it’s an off-shoot of uMatrix in the first place)
Advertising can happen without tracking, and tracking can happen silently, without any advertising.
For an example of the latter, Epic runs their own analytics on their sad excuse of a game store: a tracking protection tool will do nothing about it because it’s first-party, and good luck stomping on it with a run-of-the-mill adblocker.