For two infinitely-wealthy and virtually-sovereign parties, yes. The big difference is in litigation you can bleed your opponent dry, e.g. by piling on jurisdictions and deploying delay tactics. Thus, in addition to predicting outcomes, you're also judging the point at which the other party (a) runs out of money or (b) gets fired.
In arbitration, this doesn't work. It's a vastly more even playing field for consumers, who tend to have less money than the companies they're suing and less downside in the case outcome (money damages versus e.g. having been sexually harassed).
> emails between their lawyer and mine were about details of the dispute, not about the financial calculation I outline above, but that was just window dressing; the real decisions were made based on how much it would cost to litigate vs how much they would pay to settle
Your lawyer wasn't communicating window dressing. Case details resolve to litigation outcomes.