They will all work fine, it's a matter of personal choice. I use an RZ and find that you will get grainless prints from Acros, TMX or Pan-F at 16x20; the Pan-F starts to show grain a little before the others but it might be worth using for its tonal curve. All three require more-careful exposure and development than HP5. Rodinal looks great on them all, but you probably want to shoot at about half box-speed in that developer. If you need speed then TMY2+Xtol will give you a tiny hint of grain at 16x20 EI800 and looks great; I have that on the wall next to me and you need to stick your nose in it to see the grain patterns in the eyelashes, otherwise it's grainless.

By crisp whites, do you mean good highlight contrast? If so, Acros has a bit of a steeper curve in the highlights which means it can look very crisp but it's a little harder to control. It also has less red sensitivity, which isn't the best for portraits. I suspect your highlight contrast will depend more on the paper you select as that is what has the biggest effect in rolling off the highlights; most of these films have many stops more highlight latitude than you typically use.

Lighting will have a far greater effect than your film choice, IMHO. They will all give you deep blacks if you control your lighting properly and print appropriately. Your experience with FP4 was no doubt due to the flat lighting you used it under.