According to my observations there is still much work to be done to claim that "interoperability" between different BIM software is something real (not just a good intention). For now it seems like even big players in the field haven't yet figured out how to provide a way to interact (fully and safely) with objects transferred using IFC format between BIM software of each other.
However progress in this direction never stops, for example I've seen recently a new interesting innovation, which allows to insert a reference to an IFC file into a project, so it is possible to collaborate with engineers, detect clashes etc:
https://youtu.be/vUNxCW3weH4
Changes in a referenced IFC file can be observed in a project after refreshing (similar to a model inserted into LayOut) as far as I understood.
BTW big players may deliberately restrict interoperability between products of each other to protect their market position maybe (just an assumption though). Maybe it is the reason why progress in this direction is not that fast as we all would like.
I'm not sure how much time it may take to make possible to start working with some IFC file using one software package, then safely continue working with that same file using another software, then save to cloud and proceed editing using third software right in a browser window
On the other hand I have to admit that different software packages perceive even simple common objects like walls, slabs, openings sometime very differently (provide different ways to create/interact/edit) and such difference obviously affects how information about even basic elements is stored. Standardized data storing format even if it is excessive like IFC still may impose restrictions on certain functionality provided by certain software. So sometimes it feels like even smooth and lossless transfer between different BIM software products is something unachievable by definition not to mention real interoperability.