Most experts I know think it is better. For one thing, all filters reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor. And the more light the better. Second, red is the first but not the only wavelength to diminish with depth. You can't just bump up the reds to get true color (digitally or with filters), you have to proportionally bump up all colors. Third, the colors lost is proportional to depth. The amount of reds lost at 50' is different than at 80' Digitally, you can vary the adjustments based on depth. Filters can't. If your filter is just right foir 50', it's not for 80'. And vice versa. Backscatter tries to help by offering filters for three depth ranges (0-20, 20-50, 50>) and for most that gets it "close enough" but is not optimal. However, it wouldn't be very practical to carry 10 filters and change them out every 10 feet. But digitally you can carry 100 "filters" and change them out every 1 foot. I have long pined for a camera that integrated depth.
In post, I have a bunch of luts targeted for different depths. Of course, depth is not the only factor. Ambient light matters, and at a given depth you'll have more in clear water than silty water, more on a sunny day than a cloudy day. I would hope the paralenz also has a light meter and adjusts based on amount of light and depth, not just depth. Water can also have a color cast. Paralenz recognized this and offers a "blue water" mode and a "green water" mode. Still, waters can have other casts as well. Ideally, paralenz would capture the raw video and apply the adjustments on a separate track for playback. Then you wouldn't have to preselect the right mode and could play it back with different adjustments.
