In a word - No. I’ve tried Sea Lion several times and the only time it was worth it, the UK player didn’t see it coming and didn’t defend against it (those really don’t count).
In the games where the UK player was not caught by surprise, Germany was successful in taking London but was left with a minimal ground force (usually only a tank or two). The UK income was great, but did little to offset the 11+ transport loads of land units that were eliminated, not to mention aircraft casualties in the battle for London. All those transports ended up being a big waste overall. It became very difficult to defend London from a US liberation AND push hard against Russia who started out on the offensive - neither of which was helped by having a stack of transports. Sure, they were great for taking Leningrad, but most turns they sat unused.
I think the biggest problems with Sea Lion are the timing issues and two-front war it creates. Taking London immediately brings the USA into the war and eliminates a large chunk of Germany’s ground forces. By the time Germany builds up an invasion force for Russia, the USA shows up ready to liberate London and/or France. This not only creates a two-front war, it also creates a situation where units on one front are not very useful on the other front.
Faking Sea Lion initially and using the G1 naval build to jump start Barbarossa has been the most effective strategy for me so far. With a well played Italy, Germany can crush Russia before the USA can liberate Paris. It is a close race, but very winnable for the Axis, especially if the USA focuses on the Pacific too much.