I'd be interested to know that myself.
I've only spoken with a few because it's a potentially awkward subject.
I recall one other strongly and one other regular-strength in favor of MW+decoherence (both in my rough age-group);
one classmate said "decoherence, as I understand it, is a little more reasonable sounding than most", for ontology, but uses the Copenhagen interpretation when thinking about epistemology;
one professor was against MW just on uneasiness grounds, but didn't have a firm opinion;
one professor with the philosophy "If it's just quantum mechanics, I'm not interested. If it's not quantum mechanics, I'm not interested", which is formally equivalent to MW + decoherence but without the explicit acknowledgement that it is;
one who was against everything, especially the part with everything in it;
and too many "Let's stop talking about this/I'm not qualified to have an opinion/Aargh" to count.
In this tiny sample of mostly experimentalists:
People with a preference for the Bohm guide wave interpretation: 0
People with a preference for more sophisticated just-QM interpretations such as transactional or consistent histories: 0
People who accept wavefunction collapse as real: 1 on the fence.
A survey on the subject could be interesting.