It costs money beyond 10 links, which means either a paid subscription or institutional affiliation. This is problematic for an encyclopedia anyone can edit, like Wikipedia.
The major reason archive.today was being used is that it also bypassed paywalls, and I don't think perma.cc does that normally.
With all of this context shared, the Internet Archive is likely meeting this need without issue, to the best of my knowledge.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Endowment
[2] https://perma.cc/about ("Perma.cc was built by Harvard’s Library Innovation Lab and is backed by the power of libraries. We’re both in the forever business: libraries already look after physical and digital materials — now we can do the same for links.")
[3] https://community.crossref.org/t/how-to-get-doi-for-our-jour...
[4] https://www.crossref.org/fees/#annual-membership-fees
[5] https://www.crossref.org/fees/#content-registration-fees
(no affiliation with any entity in scope for this thread)
https://wikimediaendowment.org/annualreports/2023-2024-annua...
If pricing is so much that you have to have a call with the marketing team to get a quote, i think it would be a poor use of WMF funds.
Especially because volume of links and number of users that wikimedia would entail is probably double their entire existing userbase at least.
Ultimately we are mostly talking about a largely static web host. With legal issues being perhaps the biggest concern. It would probably make more sense for WMF to create their own than to become a perma.cc subscriber.
However for the most part, partnering with archive.org seems to be going well and already has some software integration with wikipedia.