Here's the long answer:
There are many strains of neoreaction, each with its own points of interest. I'll start with the techno-commercialists/futurists.
The techno-commercialists are intriguing first on an aesthetic level: their aesthetics are cyberpunk, and they dream of a cyberpunk future. But rather than view this hypothetical cyberpunk future as a nightmarish dystopia, they see it as an ideal society. They offer an alternative vision of liberalism, one without the trappings of democracy and human rights. Moldbug's neocameralism, when you get down to it, is essentially a reductio ad absurdum of liberalism: if you define liberalism in a Lockean manner, viz. that every person has the natural rights to life, liberty, and property, then it becomes clear that the 'property' part is in conflict with the 'life' and 'liberty' parts. The non-aggression principle, or NAP, makes this much clearer: liberty is equated with property, and the right to life is merely the right to own oneself—I am my own property. As such, the most extreme extension of this is the concept of 'exit rights': when each land-owner becomes the liege of vis property (or, in Moldbug's vision, when each piece of land is owned by a joint-stock company, whose shareholders have absolute power over the land they own), the only right afforded to the tenant/subject is the right to say 'no' and move to a different piece of land.
Nick Land's writings and lectures, both before and after he converted to NRx, are spectacular in my opinion. I occasionally browse the Ccru archives just to see the far-out philosophy he and the rest of the collective produced, and I have a PDF of Fanged Noumena.
Plus, they tend to make good art and software. I'm looking forward to installing Urbit when I get my new computer, and akira's Gematriculator is indispensable as far as techno-esotericism goes. And have you heard any of vis new album?
The traditionalists have a different kind of appeal: they often border on being palaeoreactionaries who reject liberalism as a whole as illegitimate. I share a number of positions with them: anti-liberalism, pro-life, pro-religion, social cohesion, etc., but I also believe strongly in LGBTQ+ rights and socialism. Honestly, one of the most appealing things to me about communism is that true meritocracy can emerge—a natural 'aristocracy' of the most skilled, accomplished, and virtuous.
I have little use for the 'human biodiversity' crowd, as at best, they're working from an unintentional misreading of the data on IQ and other traits and drawing the wrong conclusions, and at worst, they're eugenicists deliberately misrepresenting psychological data for racist, sexist, and classist ends. The tiny bit of 'HBD' that's worthwhile, such as correlations between personality traits and political leanings, is very interesting to me and probably highly important for understanding how to make politics work.
All in all, most of them are pretty cool (or at least interesting) people and I enjoy reading their theory as a challenge to my own biases.