"Similar efforts" is relative. A skilled retoucher can do an excellent job with Ps only.

The thing is if you want to learn to do it by hand if you have the time or you need some fast processing.

For PhotoShop google a technique called "frequency separation for skin retouch". Practice a bit and if it is too complicated or takes you too much time, then consider an "automated" tool.

But I have not tried the latest "neural filter" from Ps. I do not see it has many options.

---

Those kinds of tools can easily be abused, (their own examples look too fake) so keep that In mind.

Said that Imho Portraiture is too expensive.

Take a look at Portrait Pro. https://www.anthropics.com/portraitpro/ I think you can test it before buying it. Probably with some watermark.

I have an old version of it and for some projects, it does a decent job. It actually is fun to play with.

Here is a test. The amount of the effects can be regulated. If you zoom in you can see the details of the skin are there.

One thing I like about it is that you can control different aspects of the retouch. As far as I have seen about the Ps neural filter is that only can be turned on or off. I suppose it will improve.

---

Are separate tools relevant when the neural filter is present inside Ps?

This is more opinion-based than before. I like the separate options on the other program. I do not like much a one-click solution. I prefer two clicks. I also prefer not needing to pay a subscription when I do not need it.

Imho, there is room for different tools. Ps sometimes try to make an all-mighty powerful solution, and it does not always work.

They incorporated 3D options but they are a toy compared to dedicated ones. There are other applications more "digital paint" focused. There are also simpler applications to apply looks to a photo.

Is Ps a waste of money when I have all "I" need on Gimp, on Darktable? Probably, probably not.

There is room for different tools.

https://www.pexels.com/es-es/foto/nina-modelo-joven-cara-15830709/