The authors investigated absolute and relative metacomprehension accuracy as a function of verbal ability in college students. Students read hard texts, revised texts, or a mixed set of texts. They then predicted their performance, took a multiple-choice test on the texts, and made posttest judgments about their performance. With hard texts, students with lower verbal abilities were overconfident in predictions of future performance, and students with higher verbal abilities were underconfident in judging past performance. Revised texts produced overconfidence for predictions. Thus, absolute accuracy of predictions and confidence judgments depended on students' abilities and text difficulty. In contrast, relative metacomprehension accuracy as measured by gamma correlations did not depend on verbal ability or on text difficulty. Absolute metacomprehension accuracy was much more dependent on types of materials and verbal skills than was relative accuracy, suggesting that they may tap different aspects of metacomprehension.