In the case of returning soil samples, which scenario is likely to be the most expensive and risky:

Scenario 1:
a) Capsule reenters the Earth's atmosphere.
b) Capsule deploys one or more parachutes to slow down.
c) Capsule impacts the ground, perhaps with an airbag or retrorocket deployment.

Scenarion 2:
a) Capsule reenters the Earth's atmosphere.
b) Aerodynamic forces slow the capsule to a desired terminal velocity, say 70 MPH.
c) Capsule impacts the ground.

Step a is essentially the same between the scenarios. Step c may be the same, or if you add airbags/retrorockets, then Scenario 1 becomes more complex. It's the step b that differs. In Scenario 1, step b involves machinery (with its associated cost and mass) functioning properly. Or, in the case of Genesis, failing to function at all.

In Scenario 2, step b is passive because it is derived from the aerodynamics of the capsule. Design the capsule with a high enough coefficient of drag and a low mass and you can easily get a low terminal velocity. The capsule needs to be engineered to withstand the impact, perhaps with a crush zone. That may equal or exceed the mass of the parachute(s) and deployment equipment, but it's also passive. Passive systems are simplier and less likely to fail.

Think of the high school challenge to dropping a raw egg from a 3 story window without breaking it. Kids can do it. Professional engineers have designed bunker buster bombs that can penetrate dozens of meters of solid rock before detonating. Compared to that, building a capsule to survive a 70 MPH impact is child's play.