I'm with Duma on this one, but possibly for slightly different reasons. A lot of the studies into carbon shoes show that there are responders and non-responders to each shoe. One runner might get no benefit from shoe A vs. shoe B where another might get a 4% efficiency saving at a particular pace. That 4% saving might convert to 1% impact in marathon time (based on the studies from the original Nike Vaporfly). Marathons are won and lost by less than that, so we're saying that the winner of the marathon isn't the best runner, it's a combination of runner and the right shoe for them. Runners don't get to chose their shoe, they get the shoe from their sponsor which they may or may not respond to. That then means that the result of marathons could be determined by who is sponsored by which brand.
Full disclosure - I own and have raced in a pair of carbon road shoes. My 10k PB (2022) was in a pair of Saucony carbon shoes and it's a second quicker than my 10k PB without carbon shoes (from 2016). My HM PB (also from 2022) isn't in carbon shoes, but that might just be because I didn't own any at the time. Out of choice, I prefer the "feel" of running in the non-carbon shoes. I probably wouldn't bother with carbon off-road shoes - particularly the Saucony ones as the first generation had a rep for falling apart.