Nope, it's not better than ZFS for data protection if you have mirroring or RAID. Here's why:
While DIF/DIX will tell you at time of writing, it does sod-all after the fact, so if your data is corrupted due to any other reason, it will merely give an error (probably a SCSI read error, I'd assume). It won't even try to correct the fault.
Looking at Redhat's note on it, there are limitations on it (direct IO on XFS only - see https://access.redhat.com/solutions/41548). ZFS doesn't have those restrictions. The Redhat doc mentions it as a "new feature in the SCSI standard", so old disks won't support it. ZFS doesn't care what disks you use as long as they appear as an appropriate block/character device.
If you have ANY data corruption on ZFS, it'll detect it on read and if you have multiple data copies (mirrored, RAID-z or whatever), it'll fix it on the fly. If you only have a single copy, it'll error out and tell you which file(s) are unavailable, prompting you to recover those files.
Oracle do recommend you run a zpool scrub periodically (once a week on standard disks, once a month on enterprise level storage) to capture errors - that will also automatically fix any errors on the checksums.
ZFS does have a number of flaws (performance on a full zpool is pretty awful, for example), but it is very good at data integrity.