There are a number of trigger-based logical replication solutions for PostgreSQL, including Londiste, Slony-I and Bucardo. They're mature, fairly widely used and powerful, and like BDR they have the advantages (and disadvantages) of logical replication.
As with the comparison with physical replication, BDR offers advantages over trigger-based replication solutions but also has some downsides.
All trigger-based replication solutions suffer from inherent write-amplification, where each write to the database produces a corresponding write to a replication log table. Both the original write and the write to the replication log get recorded in WAL as well as the heap, so each write actually happens four times. By reading and processing WAL for data to replicate BDR avoids this write amplification, so writes to a BDR-replicated database only get written twice - like any other durable write on PostgreSQL.
Trigger-based replication also requires an external dæmon process on the sending and/or receiving side. BDR runs its management processes inside PostgreSQL itself, so there's no separate replication process to manage.
At the time of writing, systems like Londiste have a number of features for which BDR has no corresponding capability. Londiste can synchronise and compare tables between the publisher and subscriber. Slony-I supports events and confirmations. Slony-I provides infrastructure for handling DDL while also running on unmodified PostgreSQL 9.4. Bucardo supports multi-master on unmodified PostgreSQL 9.4. So while BDR offers some significant benefits it won't suit every need and every workload. Evaluate your needs carefully before choosing a technology.