I don't know. The wood-composite bat is certainly marketed as if it's superior to wood, and it's priced as if it's superior to wood. The fact that the handle is lighter, more durable, and has more whip than wood probably means that the bat does perform better than an all-wood bat.
I don't know what the testing shows, but I'd sure be surprised if wood composite and wood laminate bats didn't enjoy some of the same small advantages that other, truly "non-wood" BBCOR bats enjoy over wood bats. If that weren't the case, what would be the point in lumping wood composite and wood laminate bats in with metal and composite as "non-wood" bats that have to go through the BBCOR certification process?
The consensus, albeit unscientific, of several people I know who've used both wood and various wood composites is that the wood composites are definitely lower performing than straight wood.
I think all bats that aren't one-piece wood have to go through the BBCOR testing just as a matter of simplicity. I think the composite wood bats are built primarily for the durability advantage relative to wood, and because they're allowed in a lot of amateur wood leagues/tournaments, not because they're likely to hit as well as (or better) than wood. That said, I imagine that if they weren't subject to the BBCOR requirements, someone would find a way to engineer one to outperform the standard, hence the need to be consistent on bats that aren't one piece of wood.