Since 2006, European translation agencies willing to work according to the EN 15038 standard on translation services have had to include revision in their process. However, the standard is not clear as to how revision has to be conducted and in particular, to the necessity of comparing source and target texts during the revision process. This observation lies at the basis of an ongoing research project on the impact of revision procedure on revision product and process. In this paper, a noncomparative revision procedure, named monolingual revision, will be compared to three comparative procedures: bilingual revision and two “double revisions,” i.e., a bilingual revision followed by a monolingual revision and a monolingual revision followed by a bilingual revision. The aim is to determine whether monolingual revision is efficient and if so, in what conditions and compared to which procedures. In the main study, the scores of 16 professional revisers, who had to revise four comparable target texts using one of the four procedures each time, have been compared as to quality of the revision (product), error detection potential, and process duration (process). An analysis of the variance (ANOVA) has shown that monolingual revision is not significantly less efficient than bilingual revision as to quality and error detection potential, but it does not take significantly less time either. In contrast, monolingual revision is significantly less efficient than double revisions, but it does take significantly less time.