Not sure if this is too late to help or means much, but...
It was definitely not worth it for me. I liked Mojave very much. When Catalina was 9 months old, I thought it would be solid. I had no clue about the separation of the data and system volumes. The Catalina firmware on my late 2012 MacBook Pro 10,2 (best computer I've ever owned), prevents CCC & SuperDuper from encrypting bootable clones. Eh, not an issue for most people--if you have a newer Mac it's no issue (unless you have Big Sur*). But my laptop contains private data for work, so any clone I have with me for an emergency must be encrypted as well. I'm sure there are many in the medical community in the same boat. It was a warm, fuzzy feeling of security to have 2 Time Machine backups and 2 bootable clones in 2 different places, all encrypted.
When I wanted to then move "down" to Mojave, that's when I found out you can't migrate your data down from a clone made on Catalina, so I was stuck (I should have kept a Mojave clone for longer than 2 months).
*Big Sur is even more of a problem with bootable clones. They're difficult to create, and if your internal SSD (hardware) dies, it's a prime situation to boot from your clone, but you can't, because that process is dependent on the internal SSD being alive. It is POSSIBLE Apple repairs this issue, but I'm not holding my breath.
I should say: if you want to clone your data as a backup with CCC or SuperDuper to restore from, you still can. And I've never had an Apple internal SSD die on me.
I will try Big Sur regularly on a Virtual Machine and I hope that it gets better but I don't consider it a good choice for my old hardware at this time. I am on the fence about an Air/M1 and wouldn't have any choice but the performance problems on my older hardware wouldn't be an issue on the M1.