As poster @ditusa pointed to, bi-amping isn’t just bi-amping. In the pro segment "bi-amping" is usually understood as that which implies active configuration (and, it seems, even as a descriptive, general term when tri- or quad-amping is actually applied). In domestic, audiophile circles bi-amping is usually referred to as simply using a pair of typically similar amps either vertically or horizontally over passively configured speakers.
With passively configured speakers I’d likely go with a single stereo power amp. In previous setups with lower sensitivity speakers I’ve had good results with some amps in bridged mode. It brought the speakers that were used more to life with cleaner transients and a more effortless, firm foundation to the sound. The surplus in power and what the bridged mode in itself might have brought to the table with some amp to speaker combos seemed to outweigh a more expensive, single stereo amp. Now however with no less than moderately sensitive/not load heavy and passive speakers (I don’t use passive speakers, but just as an imagined scenario) I’d likely prefer a single, high quality stereo amp.
Actively bi-, tri- or more-amping is an intrinsic part of the "equation;" this is where using several amps is a necessity by design and brings with it obvious, actual benefits. Here I prefer using what’s essentially similar amps - from the top all the way down to the sub bottom - power differentiated certainly over the subs. What many misses out on is realising the importance of using a powerful quality amp, essentially similar to the ones used in the range above, over the subs - if such are used. Most subs are bundled, active packages with very different, typically built-in class D plate amps compared to the amp(s) used over the main speakers.