The first is wallet and ecosystem support. While Taproot has been active for some time now adoption among wallets exchanges and services is still not universal. If you ever need to receive funds from or send funds to a party that is not Taproot compatible you will be forced to maintain legacy addresses or accept the need for an intermediate spend which can reduce privacy and efficiency.

The second is fee dynamics over time. Taproot is generally more efficient due to smaller signatures but that advantage grows most prominently in complex spending conditions. In simple key path single sig spends the savings are modest though still worth taking.

A third point is Lightning interoperability. Taproot enabled channel funding especially for unannounced channels is a win for privacy in theory. However channel closes especially cooperative ones will indeed look like regular key path spends. The edge case to watch is the unfortunate scenario where cooperative closes cannot happen and you need to publish more complex scripts. In that case the anonymity set shrinks because most Taproot spends on chain are still key path at present so script path use stands out.