Not exactly. systemd-homed’s fundamental concept revolves around sharing your home directory between hosts; the fact that it can also encrypt it is kind of incidental. That’s of course really weird when home-manager comes into play.
Since home-manager deploys actual software into the home directory (or rather, symlinks to binaries in /nix/store), it will not actually be portable, which goes against systemd-homed’s design. So the two are a little at odds, but if you use your home directory only on one system, you probably will not run into any issues with this.
home-manager in turn is generally not designed around systemd-homed, you may find user services - and in fact just every day applications - don’t like having their filesystem suddenly unmounted. In fact, if you install your lock screen with home-manager, that may be catastrophic, so your usual WM setups might not entirely work as expected.
I’ve experimented a bit with it. It’s practically impossible to switch an existing host to it, since it requires partitioning considerations (even if you’re using btrfs, while you can use systemd-homed, you can’t get an encrypted home directory). On new hosts I found it a bit cumbersome to adapt my current desktop setup to it, and I didn’t like having a weird floaty UID. Personally I’ve decided to just stick with full-disk encryption at least until the full trusted boot story becomes feasible, without that the use case for it is a little too narrow IMO.