At 0:30, it sounds nice, but there's some sort of bassiness below the sidechained saw bass that's obscuring it. The lead's alright; kind of staple for trance, it seems.
It would have been nice if you had some sort of lead-in to 1:10. Perhaps a descending arpeggio would foretell that ambient impact, but that may just be me.
1:13 sounded like an opportunity to create an expansive soundscape, so personally, it felt kind of... incomplete, I suppose. Maybe some sort of ambient bells would contribute to the texture. The key change at 1:28 is also still abrupt; it's fine to have one, but it would then need to be foretold somehow in the melodic writing and previous harmonies.
1:50 has a harsh dissonance between the tonic of the key (e.g. C in C Major, etc.) and the bell lead.
Overall, the dynamics are kind of flat, then drop for the breakdown, then terrace up to flat again. You meant 2:11 to be louder than the previous section, but it sounds like the same volume, except muddier. This flatness to the dynamics is due to the limiter being pushed pretty hard and the mix being muddy in the bass. Try high passing everything that's not the main bass or the kick until the timbre is unfavorable, then stop moving the high pass right before that frequency. I also feel like the lead at 2:26 and on is "not taking a break". It's just playing this super long, somewhat machine-gun arpeggio until the end where it stops playing notes.
You're getting better. In my opinion, repetition is fine if it's used for familiarity and to make people feel like they're listening to the same song the whole time, but repetition to fill in when you don't want to write new parts is... just repetition. At some point, see if you can come up with a remix of something in a new (additional) genre, and see where that takes you.