I think like any other tool it depends when and how you use it.
I use the Xrite Color Checker for those jobs where I want the best possible white balance, or at least the best possible starting point for white balance AND I feel the difference is worth the trouble over the next most accurate and easier to use device (WHIBAL). I wrote a short review you can read here.
(be advised, I made the shots for this tutorial BEFORE I had the accurate srgb mode in my new NEC monitors I enjoy now. They were 'right' for my workflow and produced great prints, but I struggled with web work.)
In summary, I use the Xrite Color Checker when correct skin tones are my priority. It lives in the bag I grab when shooting people. When I'm shooting landscapes, inside temples, or under unusual or mixed lighting and I think the reference point will help, then I use the WHIBAL.
A caution: With most of my clients we learn they're working either with a monitor which isn't profiled, or is profiled incorrectly, or isn't profiled optimally for their needs. Correcting this makes the biggest difference.
Second, there is no substitute for spending many hours in front of the computer (with a properly profiled monitor) developing an 'eye' for color.
Third, todays AWB sensors are quite good. And an experienced user isn't going to use the 'technically correct' WB most of time, instead they'll want to start there if at all possible and/or convenient, and adjust to taste from there. For most uses any device will get you to that starting point including a regular inexpensive gray card. But the more critical your needs, and the more unusual the lighting, the more value the best devices have. For me personally, when I do skin tones I want to start with the most accurate hue and warm/cool it from there. Others might give that priority to landscapes, product shoots, or whatever they consider the most color critical of their work.