Less file system overhead means slightly faster than ntfs generating less heat / stress however not bootable. Also CompatIble with AHCI in disk partitions over 2tb in size .
Unless its to boot it or use non retro modern security protocols perhaps you'd better off finding a cluster resizing tool?
anything up to 32k cluster size is great its only over 32k does it become a noticeable waste.
SSD generally 32k and under. But verall 32k is a good standard for massive partitions.

It depends on what you want to do with the SSD.
NTFS supports Journaling, which makes the file system more robust. It's also very mature. NTFS hasn't changed much since XP.
I learned the hard way with HFS+ on Mac. Without Journaling, I often lost data when the Mac OS X hung.
With Journaling enabled, Disk Utility was able to fix things in most cases and I lost no data.

Anyway, exFat is not bad at all. It's the future of FAT and doesn't have permissions (gratefuly!).
Copying data to an exFAT volume makes exchanging data very comfortable.
Maybe it will also get Journaling as an option somewhen.

Edit: NTFS uses time stamps for everything. That "last access time" thing is unnecessarily causing writes to SSDs.
It can be disabled in registry, I think.

https://winaero.com/disable-ntfs-last-access- … -in-windows-10/

I wound up reformatting the drive NTFS and I am a lot happier with it. The problem I was having with ex-fat is that the minimum file size is too large - files were taking up MUCH more space than they should - couldn't fit the same files as I could as a magnetic drive of the same size.

I was kinda thinking there was a REASON why they used ex-fat (such as to reduce writes to the drive - but sure about that).

On the other hand, it is more or less a backup drive and NOT plugged in all the time.