I wish! Then we wouldn't need to deal with the drawbacks of a catalyst. Good noncats are very often lower emissions than a cat stove (my noncat is almost half as dirty as my cat stove) and some are only slightly less efficient. We're talking 5-10% in a lab, not a big deal. So look beyond emissions and lab efficiency to turn down ratio, aka control.Efficiency and Emissions are certainly an advantage of cat stoves, but couldn't a non-cat stove achieve the same temperature control? I mean, it's all about burn rate control (although that obviously would need to be a bit higher than with a cat).
As @BKVP has proven, the huge majority of stoves spend the huge majority of their lifes being run at low output. I forget but there were 90% figures being thrown out. Sure, we all need more heat sometimes but most of the time we are cruising.
What burns you with a noncat is that they need firebox temperatures of over 1000 degrees to burn clean and often burn much hotter during that initial hour or two of the fire where gasses really spew out of the wood. The noncat runs on a surplus of air in the box, lots of air to burn any fuel. There is a definite cycle that you need to take advantage of when operating a noncat to keep your home temperatures relatively steady. With the cat stove you need 500 degree exhaust just to initiate catalyst activity and then you can drop off to just enough fire to make smoke and feed the cat fuel. That little hot cat is doing the job and allows a very long burn with steady output a lot like the old pre epa stoves could do except efficiently. Match that low output to what your home loses to the environment and you have the recipe for low fuel consumption.