Every plant based product is better than their equivalent animal (warm-blooded mamals) product. Animals radiate away about 3/4 of the energy they consume. This means generally speaking land use for every x amount of animal produce, you'd only need 1/4 of the land to feed humans on plant produce. Of course some plant are worse than others nutritionally, but I think the overall idea of energy waste by warm-bodied animals is pretty self-evident. Soy is a pretty high quality protein mix and overall, it's questionable if overfeeding on easy proteins is a good idea health wise, e.g. see methionine, IGF-1 and cancer risk.
Fun fact: Almost all soy for human consumption in Europe is actually grown in Europe. The rainforest killing soy is grown to feed cows. See above...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency
Wikipedia says ATP generation alone loses 60% of energy regardless if ecto- or endothermal organism. ATP is the energy curency of life. So 60% of energy lost, before any synthesis, signaling, membrane transport, ... even happened.
Is coconut oil grown and processed in Thailand, then flown to Europe and transported by truck another few thousand miles, still better than butter made from cows milk that are raised 20km away?