SpaceX is forced to do the "hoverslam" landings (where the velocity reaches zero exactly as altitude reaches zero) because their engines can't actually throttle low enough to hover when the booster is almost empty. At the lowest power it would still accelerate upwards.
Blue Origin's booster, as far as I know, doesn't have this limitation (not that it seems to cause SpaceX too much trouble).
It is probably fair to say that initially SpaceX was "forced" to perform hover slams due to thrust/weight ratios, but they seem to have embraced that option and turned it into a strength. For example, some of their landings now use three engines instead of one, getting slightly better fuel efficiency and "slamming" even more dramatically. If they were given the option today to do a slow landing like New Shepherd, I don't think they would take it.
It will be interesting to see whether Blue goes to a faster landing profile when they start making orbital rockets that are actually performance sensitive.
Blue Origin's booster, as far as I know, doesn't have this limitation (not that it seems to cause SpaceX too much trouble).