Well, I think they are not the same thing. That's like going to a math conference and get disappointed that they don't hand out research awards for results found in mechanical engineering papers
Let's talk about two bodies of work that ought to be about the same type of people, but actually yield very different results. Let's compare James Salter's first two books, The Hunters and Cassada with The Expanse series.
James Salter's first two books draws from his experience as a late joiner to the American Army Aircorps, of which he graduated in 1945. The first book, Hunters, draws from his experience as a fighter pilot in the Korean War. It's about a guy who really wants to be successful as a fighter pilot. Throughout the book, while I the reader is constantly rooting for him, he is awash in self doubt. I don't think my efforts for rooting for him are in vain, but the character took awile for me to get to liking. Cassada on the other hand is about a guy who I imediately draw a liking to, but his charm does not extend to many of his cohorts within the book. I'm often surprised by what happens, how my heart strings get tugged with and it almost seems like disappointment hits both the characters and me in waves where I would least expect it.
But I read the Expanse series, and immediately the tropes jump out. As a novel where one co-author did the world building for an MMO game first, and then play tested it using D20 modern characters, the mechanics of this world seemed pre-ordained, the characters already seemed like they were a bit more sure of themselves and the people writing/playing them had a good idea on how they were going to react given a circumstance, as role player tend to have a habit of playing slightly different takes on the same theme most of the time. I open this book and come to feelings of simulteously being somewhere new, and having been there before, all at once. I remember a pair of adidas that I really liked playing basketball in when I was in my teens and in my late 20s it was re-released. The shoe felt similar, but better constructed. The Expanse feels no different.
Literary fiction toys with the literary fiction making process whilst in the guise of putting together a tale. The reader here does the work of deconstructing the process. The literary protaganist may be the center of the plot, but he/she/it isn't really driving it. Most of the time they aren't even all that likable in the beginning. I read literary fiction and examine how and why things are done while I anticipate what happens from page to page.
In commercial fiction, the main characters do most of the work for the reader. There's less playing around in style. Characters that drive the book are immediately likable. I don't really have to wonder about the why or the how. Most commercial fiction borrow important techniques from literary fiction from years past, and some sci fi writers read their literary fiction contemporaries (it's obvious that Neal Stephenson borrows from David Foster Wallace). So if I pay attention and keep up with my literary world stuff, the sci fi stuff will use dramatic techniques and plot devices that trickle down.