The comparison needs perspective. The fact that night vision goggles amplify light levels by a factor of 1 * 10^4 to 5 * 10^4, isn't relevant to the issue of doubling night vision in an unaided eye. That would be like saying the existence of the Hubble space telescope means binoculars serve no purpose.
One might instead compare the cost of a night vision scope versus the cost of the described chlorophyll approach. Or compare the fields of view, or the required weight to be carried in the field.
Definitely. But it might make you more vulnerable to light - getting light into your night vision goggles will make you shortly blinded. With eyes altered due to drops or pills, it would make you vulnerable for the duration of the effect. Goggles you can take off quickly.
But for non-military applications, not to have to use goggles to see (better) at night, would be so much more comfortable.
One might instead compare the cost of a night vision scope versus the cost of the described chlorophyll approach. Or compare the fields of view, or the required weight to be carried in the field.