I don't run the whole network IPv6 -- for hosts I care about having an IPv6 egress for, I use a Wireguard tunnel in IPv6 private address space to a bastion host. If I want to expose a port, I forward it from the other side. It's a sad state of affairs :-(
Just setting up SLAAC is very straightforward, probably (ignoring any unfamiliarity issues) more simple than DHCP?
Pulling addresses from your service provider via prefix delegation can be a bit funny, and could do with being a lot more polished. Instructions/community support in particular can be problematic as ISPs tend to use different prefix lengths, rather than just standardising on /56. And also less relevant if you have a static allocation, which is potentially more likely with IPv6 than IPv4.
And DNS becomes more important, as does firewalling, no more relying on the somewhat dubious NAT safety net.
My ISP seems to have ipv6 out of the box, but a little worried about security given it's NAT-less nature
For a home network/SME-scale, I don't see the value proposition of IPv6. It takes time to retrain staff, incurs hardware and software replacement costs in some cases (not to mention licensing changes from vendors) and ties up developer/IT time during the process of upgrading and troubleshooting IPv6 teething issues (as I've found in my case). The outcome is that the network can now handle more addresses and more advanced workloads, but becomes harder to maintain. Most home/SME-scale networks don't need even half of the 10.0.0.0/8 address space and don't take advantage of the new features, so it becomes pointless to upgrade unless you outgrow IPv4's capabilities or know you're on track to doing so.
What worked for me was running https://github.com/robbertkl/docker-ipv6nat which allows you to run containers with NATed ipv6 addrsses exactly the same way you'd run ipv4.