First of all, bluebird and co are not comparable like that. You mean Bluebird.coroutine vs co (short for coroutine).
Now, the difference between Bluebird.coroutine and co is that co only allows you to yield a certain set of hard-coded types. While Bluebird.coroutine can be configured to support yielding arbitrary types, the documentation for example contains examples how you can add support for yielding thunks and callbacks.
Async generators are so trivial that the only differences there can be between implementations is what types you can yield and how it performs. Not much room to be better or worse.
However bluebird.coroutine is only a fraction of bluebird features.
Generators only solve the problem of making a sequence of actions less verbose. There is a lot of useful functionality for more advanced needs like resource management, concurrency coordination, error handling, cancellation+timeouts and long stack traces which are impossible or extremely painful if you only have async generators powered by thunks/callbacks/minimal promises.
You can make a drop-in replacement for co by configuring all the yield types that co supports and then just using bluebird.coroutine:
var co = require("bluebird").coroutine;
// Configure all yield types you need using co.addYieldHandler
// See documentation for examples
module.exports = co;
However this doesn't really make any sense since very little code actually should run directly in your request handler - the functions that the request handler calls however do. And those functions are not helped by koa (hmm so what is the point of koa again? :D), so they can be bluebird coroutines directly.
