Limiting global temperature rise to between 1.5 and 2 °C will likely require widespread deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to offset sectors with hard-to-abate emissions. As financial resources for decarbonization are finite, strategic deployment of CDR technologies is essential for maximizing atmospheric CO2 reductions. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), using either direct air capture (DACCS) or bioenergy (BECCS) technologies has a particular synergy with geothermal electricity generation. This is because expensive geothermal infrastructure can be leveraged to transport dissolved CO2 for storage in subsurface reservoirs.Here, we present a techno-economic comparison of renewable electricity generation coupled with either BECCS or DACCS at high-temperature, low-gas hydrothermal systems. We use a systems model that quantifies energy, carbon and financial flows through a generic hybrid power plant. At a CO2 market price of $100/tonne, the geothermal-BECCS system has a lower median cost of electricity generation ($88/MWh) than geothermal-DACCS ($181/MWh) and conventional geothermal ($89/MWh).Geothermal-BECCS also had the lowest costs of overall emissions abatement, $122/tCO2, accounting for carbon removal and assuming displacement of fossil-fuel generation. Abatement costs are even lower, $45/tCO2, for BECCS retrofit of existing geothermal plants, owing to discounted costs of pre-existing injection wells, steam fields, and plant equipment.For a case study based on a geothermal field in New Zealand's Taupō Volcanic Zone (TVZ), we determined that achieving CDR rates of 1 MtCO2/year via new geothermal-BECCS builds would require 62 standard geothermal wells and 790 kt/year of feedstock and result in 511 MWe in installed capacity. In contrast, geothermal-DACCS would need 49 wells and no external fuel source to achieve 1 MtCO2/year scale but result in only 190 MWe in installed capacity. Both pathways are calculated to require similar upfront investment costs at $2.2 billion and $2.3 billion for geothermal-BECCS and geothermal-DACCS respectively.Although geothermal-DACCS removes CO2 at high rates, its high parasitic load increases the overall decarbonization cost ($187/tCO2). In contrast, when biomass hybridization is considered, geothermal-BECCS has a lower cost of emissions abatement and produces 20 % more electricity than the benchmark geothermal plant. We conclude that this increase in electricity production makes geothermal-BECCS the more cost-effective geothermal-based CDR configuration. Finally, we argue that revenues from net-negative CO2 emissions and increased power production make geothermal-CDR a cost-competitive decarbonization technology.