Bohm QM is basically the Schrodinger equation split into a real and imaginary part. There is the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the real part that includes this quantum potential term
-∂S/∂t = H - (ħ^2/2m)∇^2R/R
for the wave function ψ = Re^{-iS/ħ}. That quantum potential is associated with the guidance equation. There is an imaginary part which is formally a continuity equation. None of this is wrong exactly, but I think it is weak. The one problem is that it depends upon classical variables, where we know there are quantum observables that have no classical analogue. In addition quantum mechanics with its complementarity of observables permits one to work exclusively in the position or momentum representation. This is a halving of the number of degrees of freedom a theory needs. Bohm QM brings back the full phase space with {p, q} variables.
I think this is potentially useful for quantum chaos, for the classical-like structure of this theory is I think better adapted to the techniques in classical perturbation theory and looking at KAM theorem results on puncturing invariant tori. The classical-like particle, called the beable, then traces out chaotic motion. Of course to my way of thinking this beable is really just a mathematical fiction of sorts. It is a gadget used to compute scarring in quantum chaos.
The BQM is a sort of interpretation. It is meant to get around the cut-off problem with Copenhagen interpretation. MWI has been worked out with Born theorem. I think the big open question is contextuality. An observer is free to orient their Stern-Gerlach apparatus by choice. This selects the eigenbasis of a measurement, but the Kochen-Specker theorem tells us that QM has no such contextuality; QM treats all bases equivalently up to a unitary transformation. So this eigen-splitting of the world in MWI, where different observers record different results, has some sort of implicit contextuality.
It is my general observation that QM interpretations that are meant to give some dynamics to a measurement, such as Bohm's QM does by tying things closely to classical physics, runs into their own set of difficulties. Quantum interpretations in my opinion are devices that can be employed for different problems, where some interpretation turns out to be more applicable. Now there is the rise of Qubism, which ties QM to Bayes' theorem, but as near as I can tell this ends up being just another interpretation.
Cheers LC