I don't think they are comparable. I run both. NoScript is a security suite – besides blocking java, webgl, flash, silverlight, javascript, etc – it has additional defenses against XSS, ABE, clickjacking etc.

uBlock was to my knowledge never developed to securely stop scripts and deter drive-by attacks etc. It should be used for adblocking, not for security.

...or uMatrix with its fine-grained control.

The fact that NoScript supports script surrogates might be a reason. That means less websites will break when not enabling scripts that are expected but not really necessary.

http://www.ghacks.net/2015/11/24/noscript-script-surrogates-...

>When you visit a site in Firefox that loads the Google Analytics script on page load, NoScript intercepts that request and replaces it automatically with the replacement instructions (which basically tell the site that the Analytics script was loaded fine but does nothing in regards to user recording).