There's an ongoing thread on CF-Talk regarding the advantages of BlueDragon versus CFMX on BEA WebLogic. Here's my summary of the main differences:
1) BlueDragon is tested and certified by BEA's quality assurance (QA) test team; CFMX is not. The BEA QA testers and technical support staff are trained on BlueDragon; they're not trained on CFMX.
2) When you have a problem or question with BlueDragon on WebLogic, you have one place to go: BEA tech support. There's a formal communication channel in place between BEA and New Atlanta tech support for resolving integration issues.
3) When you have a problem or question with CFMX on WebLogic, you first have to figure out if it's a CFMX problem or a WebLogic problem, then contact either Adobe or BEA as appropriate. There's no formal communication channel in place between BEA and Adobe tech support for resolving integration issues.
4) New Atlanta has direct access to BEA WebLogic engineers to assist during product development, which is one reason we're able to support packed WARs, and is why BlueDragon will support WebLogic 10 as soon as it ships next month (while CFMX is only adding support for WebLogic 9.2 in Scorpio--CFMX 8--sometime later in 2007, more than two full years after BlueDragon first supported WebLogic 9.0).
If you're deploying CFML on BEA WebLogic, there are real, tangible benefits to using BlueDragon, BEA WebLogic Edition as your CFML engine.