I made this comparison a while ago. 10 Micron was also on my list, but like you I decided against it because of the higher cost for the base model of the mount. It was a fantastic mount that did things the MyT and Mach1 couldn't but the extra cost didn't balance the added value gained. In the end I decided to go with the Mach1. The reasons I selected AP over Software Bisque were as follows:
1. AP uses a standard 12v power supply. MyT would have required a 48v power source when everything else in my setup was 12v. I didn't want to deal with that.
2. AP mounts are remarkably accurate but are stupid simple to setup and use. With the MyT I would need to learn the TSX suite. Which is some amazing software but has a steep learning curve. I didn't want to deal with that. With the AP mounts I put in the RAPAS, put Polaris where the app told me to, sync (ONLY! when I am in the field and setting up/tearing down each time) on a star, and I am within minutes of the pole and all my GOTO's are dead nuts on.
3. There is 15 lbs extra headroom with the Mach1 vs. the MyT. That being 65 lbs vs 50 lbs. And the usual 1/2 of the rated weight don't apply to either of them. So that is an accurate weight rating within reason. By within reason I mean that moment arm also comes into play. I can put my EdgeHD 14" SCT on my Mach1 without problem. The Mach1 treats it like it isn't there. I can't put a TEC 180 on it and expect to image with it. The moment arm on the TEC is substantially greater than with the SCT due to the length of the tube plus the weight.
4. The way the mount is made mechanically and the interface to it (electronics and computer control) is done differently than the MyT. The MyT is a engineering marvel from a high tech feature rich standpoint. The Mach1 is, as I said, stupid simple.
Here is an analogy: My friend had a BMW road bike. It was the police interceptor version. Computer controlled with lots of high tech high value features. I rode a 1975 Harley Shovelhead FL. It was stock save I added an electronic starter to it. Kick starting it was not a lot of fun. He and I were both in a parking lot after eating lunch. My starter crapped out. His computer crapped out. A flatbed tow truck had to come get his bike and tow it to the local BMW dealer for technician repair. I kick started my Harley, he got on the back, rode B****, when we got back to my place I tore down my starter system and repaired it in my driveway while we shot the bull. I then took him home. He got his bike back three days later with a steep bill.
My point is that the Mach1 is like my Harley with the electronic starter. Old school but reliable. The MyT is a technological marvel but is very dependent on that technology.
With all that said my reasons/requirements may not mesh with your reasons/requirements. Either the Mach1 or the MyT will be a fantastic setup and you will be pleased as pie with either of them. What both do for you is make one of the more frustrating aspects of AP much less so. They do this because they reduce the potential amount of fiddling you have to do either each time you setup or in the event you are troubleshooting. By fiddling I mean the setup and ultimately troubleshooting you have to go through to get things to work right. They do this because the manufacturing tolerances are higher so there is a much lower variation on build, the materials used are higher, the QC is higher, and the performance is higher. You do get what you pay for.
I also own the CGX. It isn't the L but it is the same class of mount. I use it for outreach with the EdgeHD 14". I don't think I would use it for imaging simply because it is a mass produced mount and the potential fiddle factor is much higher with it or any of the other mass produced mounts. These mounts are built to a different price point than the boutique mounts like the Mach1 and MyT.
For me I want to image. That is the core critical success factor. Anything that has the potential to take me away from the CSF is a detriment to my enjoyment of the AP part of the hobby. Thus for me, the cost of the Mach1 was worth it because with it I eliminate a big component of the potential problems that can crop up in a very complex and difficult part of the hobby.
One more thought. If you look at the top tier of imagers you will find they are not imaging with a Celestron, Meade, iOptron, Skywatcher mount. They are using AP, Software Bisque, or 10 Micron mounts. They do this for a reason. And it isn't because they are necessarily swimming in spare cash.
Oh and one last thought. Don't worry. One of the iOptron fanatical rabid evangelists should be along shortly to loudly tout the wonders of iOptron like a street corner preacher trying to hustle some poor piker out of their hard earned cash and berate you for being a mouth breathing unwashed drooling dolt for daring to consider anything other than a CEM60. Just smile and nod then slowly back away.