Is it possible though, that Copenhagen is wrong in a similar manner to epicycles that give the correct numerical answer?

That's the impression I get as a non-physicist, that yes it's kind of an aesthetic preference, but on the other hand aesthetics are important and sometimes are pivotal in finding new insights.

Ugly may not be completely objective, but it isn't completely arbitrary either.

I should correct an important misconception. Epicycles do not produce correct predictions.

Epicycles can produce correct point location of planets, but do not produce correct phase. Galileo observed heliocentrism-compatible phase of Venus with his telescope. That was the crucial experiment, not the simplicity.

I don't think it's important to my point. The point remains that multiple theories can be equivalent in some restricted sense, yet the more aesthetic one might have greater potential.

But it matters. All the major interpretations give you the same results (otherwise we’d just test it and rule out the wrong ones).

Copenhagen is wrong to the degree that any theory can be called wrong. It posits specific physical events (collapse) which are not only unsupported by evidence, and not only contradicted by evidence (delayed choice quantum eraser experiments), and not only logically self contradictory (when it is not too vague to make concrete statements about the phenomena it is explaining, it is circular-- our theory of electrons cannot include scientists (or the macroscopic world in general) as a fundamental element, when scientists themselves are explained in terms of electrons), but ontologically inferior to many worlds, which explains all the same phenomena without adding any new suppositions (and no, the extra worlds are not extra suppositions, they are natural predictions that arise by simply following well verified quantum laws to their natural conclusion, by treating the environment as a quantum mechanical system of particles).

MW might be simpler in the way it arises but while it produces the same results it doesn’t really matter. And it definitely has enough supporters to ruin the “stubborn physicists” hypothesis.