I have a bootable 1TB SATA SSD in a USB 3.0 enclosure (Total £60) and a bootable 1TB NVMe in a Thunderbolt enclosure (Total £130).
I booted from the first one for a year and was able to assess its performance compared to the internal SSD.
Subjectively everything felt the same but on timed tests of video rendering and exporting the very slow (360MB/s) SSD took around 4% longer than the internal which is fairly negligible.
A few months ago my curiosity got the better of me and I forked out the readies for the Thunderbolt NVMe (2,800MB/s).
Yep! It was faster in so far as it rendered and exported around 4% quicker but that is such a small increase that in every day use it is not noticeable.
So was it worth the extra cash? Probably not.
However, there is just one time when the faster drive shows its paces and that is when copying massive files . . . something which I rarely do, so just for you I have done a test copying a 31GB folder.
The Thunderbolt NVMe did it in 26 seconds whereas the USB 3.0 SSD took a massive 2 minutes 42 seconds.
If you are a professional where time is money and you are copying hundreds of GBs a day the time saving may be worth it but if you are like me and unlikely to copy anything for another year it definitely isn't.
The point is that if you get a dead cheap USB 3.0 enclosure (under £15) if you find it is not fast enough you can then fork out another £70 upwards for a Thunderbolt one and you have only lost a tiny amount.
Of course you may be a member of the Musk family with cash burning a hole in your pocket, in which case ignore everything I have written!
SORRY! This was directed to the OP.