My opinion is that if you're already well into a project, it makes far more sense to donate to Godot's development and remain in unity while also developing as much as possible in an engine agnostic manner. Moving to Unreal makes about as much sense as moving from Microsoft Edge to Google Chrome. You're still beholden to a corporation's whims.

Godot seems to be at the state Blender was ~5-10 years ago. Many major features are ticked but on closer inspection, there are significant missing pieces or implementation bugs.

When I last looked, there were issues involving scriptable render pipelines, post-processing, lighting, maturity of 3D physics, feature completeness of AI components such as navmeshes, lots of QoL issues around shaders. Lots of individually small headaches around animations, transformation hierarchies, input handling, collisions, IK that add up. There are also of course the usually mentioned limitations around asset store, platform breadth, 3rd party support and tutorial/community size and documentation.

AFAIK, there is no Shader and vfx graph equivalent for non-programmers. A Jobs and burst equivalent for C# users would also be very useful.

As good as Godot is already, given it still needs work, you should seriously consider donating to its development even if you don't intend to use it. Also, if you're starting a new hobby game you should ideally choose godot over unity, it's the only way holes will get identified and filled.

The only way to make corporations accountable is for open-source alternatives to be a viable third option such that whenever cost of use exceeds a commercial offering's value proposition, switching to open-source is a no-brainer.

I hope this didn't come across as too critical of Godot. It is rather the opposite, I really want it to get to where Blender is today. If I'm out of date anywhere I'd actually be happy to hear that.