It comes down to budget and expectations. Then it comes down to your day time seeing conditions. The idea of larger aperture can be interesting in solar, but not if your day time seeing conditions are 3~4" and a fuzzy mess. This is why a lot of solar options are small aperture. Also, our star is so close to us that a mere 60mm aperture can resolve the major features really well, even visually. You don't need a big aperture like for planets. Think more like how lunar observation is with smaller apertures, you can see a ton with small apertures because its so close. Solar visual is the same as solar system in general, just with the idea that its big and close and very very bright of course and then sprinkle some safety on top to avoid any eyeball damage.
Hydrogen alpha is the upper chromosphere, and a red wavelength, 656nm so it helps with calming poor seeing (which is all day in daytime). A dedicated sub-angstrom filtered HA scope is going to cost hundreds for the most basic to over $1k for even a small 60mm dedicated scope. However, it's worth it. The chromosphere is the most dynamic crazy hell-fire landscape you can view off-Earth. It changes in minutes to hours. It changes completely daily. This is where you'll see the prominences, filaments, plages, etc that are so explosive. While most of these dedicated scopes are refractors (because of the simplicity of total transmission of lenses and the ease of thermal handling as lenses do not absorb heat, they're ideal instruments for solar) it can be configured on a mirror based instrument too (this is common for large aperture setups). The mirror systems require full aperture thermal handling filters and are incredibly expensive to get and pretty much custom (to see an example of commercial options, this would be Airy Labs HAT or Baader's Tri-Band SCT). I don't recommend these big aperture mirror options for visual though. For entering this, I would stick to a refractor design for simplicity and portability and cost.
Visual hydrogen alpha doesn't need a big aperture to be stunning, but I will make a special note that a double-stacked (dual etalon) filter system is ideal because the contrast difference is extremely important visually and makes a significant difference. I would sacrifice aperture for double-stacking with respect to visual of hydrogen alpha. Not all systems can be double stacked, so you have to pay attention to this. Also, cost goes up fast, but again, it makes a big difference and is worth it.
Photosphere viewing, also called "white light" can be done rather inexpensively with solar film (like Baader visual grade ND5.0 solar film, it's totally safe and very durable despite the idea of it) or a herschel wedge (this only works with refractors). Photosphere viewing is full spectrum, so this means you can have chromatic aberration on the limb, just like the moon or anything else if using a telescope design prone to CA (like fast achromatic refractors; not an issue for ED/APO or mirrors). Overall its not a big deal as it's only the limb, but some people care about that and its only for the photosphere. Everything else will be narrowband and will have zero CA as an option. Any scope design works here.
There are other layers to the sun of course (Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, etc), but really I wouldn't go beyond hydrogen alpha and any wavelength of the photosphere for visual.
For practicality I would point your attention to Lunt's modular design scopes. This allows you to get a small 60mm ED refractor that will be able to swap between HA and photosphere visually with one scope and it still will be useful for any subject at night too, being an ED refractor. Fantastic travel scope in that way, good for everything, simple and small.
If that's not budget friendly, consider Lunt's upcoming 40mm option.
I wouldn't go for a PST at this time, because of this new superior offering from Lunt at a similar price. These are ok devices but have the most compromise of anything there is out there.
I wouldn't go for a Solarmax at this time, with Meade's legal status and bankruptcy stuff being in limbo with respect to having support later on if something is wrong. The Solarmax III series are nice, modular on a base achromatic refractor with a good crayford focuser (far superior to the old SM2 series in that way); front mounted is ideal and you can double stack, prices are good. But again, it's up to you whether you want to get something at this price point with a questionable future support from, considering them filing bankruptcy after being sued by Orion.
I wouldn't go for a Daystar/SolarSpectrum right now (Rear mounted etalons) unless your goal is the biggest aperture for the cost you can manage (seeing requirements skyrocket). They're good, excellent even, but they require power sources to control the bandpass with heat (pressure). This would be the least expensive way to get a huge aperture for solar on a budget, due to rear mounted design. Allowing a 6 inch refractor to be used without a front mounted thermal filter to handle the heat even (though its recommended frankly over 120mm aperture to get a front mounted thermal handling filter). Your seeing would need to handle these scales to bother going this direction. Yes you can put it in a smaller scope too, but you cannot double stack these, so it's always a single stack view and low contrast due to that. For visual, I would highly suggest a double stack view for high contrast, it's simply unforgettable.