I may be missing your point, but the intent of comedy as opposed to Aristotle's tragedy (defined) is completely different. With Greek comedy (comedy-drama, etc,.), the intent was to entertain. Whereas the tragedy would often teach a lesson, it was about a great person (often, but not always, a man) who experienced a drastic "reversal" (peripeteia) of luck. Where comedy had a happy ending, the tragedy ended in death. Comedy was supposed to entertain and would not be about a great (accomplished) person, but would be about the lower classes, while Aristotle's perception of tragedy referred to the tragic hero (who was a "great" or accomplished, highly regarded man—not a commoner).
If you are asking whether comedy and tragedy could both "entertain" an audience, I would say yes, but that would depend on a very general definition of entertainment. Both would be diverting, however I see entertainment as something that brings pleasure. A tragedy would be diverting as well, but I believe it would require some reflection, and would certainly not be uplifting as a comedy would be.
I think that Aristotle would see that each would have a separate purpose and would not provide the same effect.