Schopenhauer, whom we already cannot like because he belongs to those, who thought it better not to be born and therefore regarded compassion for the living as a necessary ethical attitude, has only contempt for the Stoa vs Cynicism:
This was the means of information of the Stoics: they were therefore mere prattlers, and to the Cynics they behaved approximately as well-fed Benedictines and Augustinians to Franciscans and Capuchins. The more they neglected the practice, the more they sharpened the theory.
Schopenhauer, Gesammelte Werke
We do not at all share the contempt of Stoicism with this pessimist.
In fact, Cynicism is the mother of Stoicism. And what mother could hate her children?
A Stoic once tried to explain the difference to Cynics as follows: Cynics climb the mountain steeply. Stoics use the hiking trail. What may be true is that we Cynics just get by with our one/two virtues. Whereas Stoics are more concerned with adapting to society and also do not generally reject the state as we do, so they are not anarchists.
Nevertheless, the Stoics have developed many valuable tips for everyday life. There is no reason why we should not make use of them.
And Schopenhauer did not understand Cynicism either, because he believed that poverty was a core of Cynicism for us. In fact, there were such currents. But there were also cynics who only wanted to overcome the dependence on unnecessary things. The others are certainly right in that it is usually more difficult to break away from luxuries to which one has once become accustomed. On the other hand, people like Elon Musk also enjoy spending a weekend with his son in a primitive tent. And the wealthy in particular buy mobile homes and prefer living in them to luxury hotels.
Nevertheless, the very differences between the current hype of a modern Stoa and Cynicism are undeniable.