Yes. When I used to hike in the UK we used Naismith's rule [0] to figure out the additional time due to ascents / descents. We didn't generally climb or scramble and IIRC the rule gave us a likely minimum time, not accounting of course for breaks, really steep bits, goofing around, etc.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naismith%27s_rule

We have similar rules of thumbs in New Zealand, ours are a bit more generous though, given how much of our ascent is very steep.

On a track, Igenerally estimate 1 hour for 300 meters ascent, 1 hour for 600 meters descent.

But in the bush, with no tracks but animal tracks, in the North Island or on the West Coast of the South Island, where the forest is denser, a good rule of thumb is 1 hour to ascend 100m, 1 hour to descend 200m.

In the eastern beech forests, which are typically more open, 1 hour for 200m up, 1 hour for 300m down is realistic.

The big issue of course, is that descending in untracked bush is a great way to find impassable waterfalls or bluff lines that require sidling or ascending to a ridge to bypass.

There certainly are situations where the terrain is unusually challenging which throws off any formula. (Also conditions like snow.) But, yes, in general a combination of distance and elevation gain usually gives you a reasonable approximation.

Naismith must have been a hard mountaineer; I can't keep up with his timings, certainly not in Scottish hill country.