I have both. In fact, the 60mm macro lens is the only reason I’m still hanging on to M43 and not converting totally to the Sony RX10iv and RX100vii.
It does depend upon what your interests are, and the degree of magnification required. I’m an insect freak and the Sony, good as it is, can’t get shots of small insects with the ease that a true macro can. Having said that, I took my 60mm lens on holiday and didn’t actually use it! It’s a case of the camera you have with you........ so the wasp spiders and unidentified digger wasp got recorded (and surprisingly well) on the Sony. The RX10 can get moving insects at enough distance not to frighten them, you can also get closeup filters for the lens, I have one.
I guess the answer to your question is does the RX satisfy your need for macro, if not, why not? Can you get somewhere to look at/try the macro lens and see how you get on with it? That attached to a M43 body doesn’t have the bulk of the Sony so becomes much more manoeuvrable in tight spaces for me at least. The other factor is cost, obviously, the 60mm is going to cost quite a bit and only you can tell if that’s worth it for you. For flowers and other things like that pretty much any camera can do very well and I wouldn’t bother with a true macro lens.
I’ll try to answer any other specific questions you may have.
