The authors investigated differences in the processes underlying two types of metacomprehension judgments: judgments of difficulty and predictions of performance (JOD vs. POP). An experiment was conducted to assess whether these two types of judgments aligned with different types of processing cues, and whether their accuracy correlated with different factors such as sensitivity to processing ease and reading ability. Participants (n = 72) read an extended text about brain structure and after each sentence made either a JOD or POP. Results suggested that JODs and POPs were made based on different sets of cues because different factors correlated with the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments. JOD accuracy correlated with sensitivity to processing ease and POP accuracy most strongly correlated with reading ability. Engaging in different metacomprehension judgments during reading may alter the information sources to which a reader attends and which factors influence metacognitive accuracy.