A retimer is a much simpler device (thus cheaper) and can be tested using linear methods. To test a line with a redriver you really need a full on BERT system + a VNA whereas you can get by with just the VNA for the retimer. To accurately characterize PCIe Gen 4 and 5 you need to go to almost 50 GHz of bandwidth on your test equipment so you are talking big money on hardware for test, design, and validation.
Meanwhile, a redriver doubles your power budget on the driver since it literally is a second set of drivers in the middle of your PCIe line.
This is an ad from a company that sells redrivers. It's an informative ad, but still an add so it should be viewed with a critical eye.
But there are trade-offs that can lower the capital cost, like leasing the equipment, using a third party for aspects of the design/test, carefully evolving known good designs and simply budgeting a lot more for more PCB re-spins.
In the finally analysis those to want to make products in this domain aren't doing it on a shoestring budget, it's going to cost a lot no matter what.
Also, while I agree with big money for hardware, do you see a way around if your design needs a retimer?
You can go a long ways with careful design and quality redrivers, but at some point it will be better to go to a retimer. Which you should use is a matter of use case and engineering decisions. Just please be skeptical of the conclusion that "Usage [of redrivers] is highly discouraged; use at own risk" from a company that specifically designs and sells retimers.
Though apparently retimers are allowed to spend up to 64 nanoseconds? What takes so long? Especially when the PCIe spec casually asserts the existence of <10ns retimers.