I read Aurelius, Epicetus, and Cicero as a young adult. I always liked Aurelius for the practical wisdom in his writings. I don't really identify as a stoic. But yet, I embrace most of the main tenets of stoicism in my personal philosophy. Propositional logic, that all things being are made of matter, that abstractions can be pondered, that some things are simply indifferent, truth can be reached by logic and investigation, that naturalism is a valid concept. I embrace the various practices proposed for the most part by stoicism, including self-reflection, contemplation of death, meditating, acceptance.
Where I break from classical Stoicism is in the acceptance of fate; I do not believe in fate. Or at least not in the conceptual "intelligent" or omnipotent form of Fate commonly described by classical stoics. Quite the contrary, the only fate in existence, to my mind, is the deterministic end of being. If you are you will die. That is the only fate, fatality.
I haven't thought too hard about stoicism in a long time. But Massimo Pigliucci, who primarily conducts research in Evolutionary Theory is a big proponent of stoicism as a modern philosophy. I'm a big fan of his professional work as a biologist and his work in popularizing and characterizing an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) is extremely well done; as in, his name will be among those cited for decades (centuries?) to come along side guys like Darwin, Wallace, Mendel, Huxley, and Haldane (to name a few). The conceptual ideas behind the EES have some basis in stoic propositional logic and are profoundly important for work going on in evolutionary biology currently. It was his work with EES that prompted him to explore various philosophical stances. Four years ago or so, he took a sabbatical from his biological work to do extended research into stoicism. In other words, I think the guy has a lot to offer on classical philosophical thoughts, while still coming to be a philosophical epistemologist from a parallel field of study (one that is fundamentally based on conceptual ideas of Nature, too).
And I think that's all I've got to offer on stoicism.