I use worktrees and I wondered the same question, so far here's what I like:

git worktrees list can show all the worktrees, you have for this same repo (not crazy value, I know)

git fetch applies to all your worktrees

git stash / apply can work across worktrees, so I can stash in one and apply it to another

You're limited to a specific branch per worktree and many don't like that but I typically work from a detached HEAD anyways.

The different worktrees share the same .git state. The article has an example where the author uses one tree for writing code and one for fuzzing it. If they used multiple clones they'd have to push from the writing directory and pull from the fuzzing directory to get new commits to fuzz but with worktrees this state synchronization between different git directories happens automatically.

multiple clones

Why would you do this to yourself?

The benefit is that you have everything collected in one place. You can jump between any of your local branches, and there’s no confusion about which state the branches are in.

If you have multiple clones, then there’s the risk that you’ve forgotten to sync main in all your different clones.

Then there’s also the problem that all the generated binaries will be out of sync. You still have 5 copies of each binary.

It's just clones but with shortcuts, I don't see the point of m