Anything done to get the antenna impedance closer to 50 ohms (or whatever the design might call for) can be called an impedance match, loading coils included.
However I would note: many loading coils aren't exactly equivalent to an inductor at the feedpoint.
Quite often, the loading coil is not at the base of the antenna but rather somewhere in the middle. This requires the inductance to be larger, but it also increases the current in the section of the antenna below the coil. Getting more current over a longer length increases radiation efficiency.
There's an optimal place to put it: too high and the inductance required is so high that the resistance of the additional wire required offsets the other gains.
It's also possible to "stretch out" the coil which distributes the inductance over the entire length. For example consider the rubber ducky antenna, ubiquitous on handheld radios.
Or consider the MFJ hamstick which has a lower section of loosely wound coil like a rubber ducky, a tightly wound loading coil in the middle, and a simple whip at the top.
So yes, loading coils are a matching technique. And it's true it's possible, with ideal lossless components, to make a matching network from inductors, capacitors, and transmission line stubs that will match any load.
But when you start to consider real components with loss that can impact performance, the reasons for one matching technique over another become more apparent. For example, an air-core loading coil in the middle of an antenna performs differently than an inductor wound on a lossy ferrite core at the feedpoint.