Our findings indicate that post-editors were about 5 minutes faster (M = 41.03) than human translators (M = 46.27), but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. These results replicate previous findings that failed to find differences between from-scratch human translators and post-editors in terms of temporal efficiency (Garcia, 2010; Carl et al., 2011). It was also demonstrated in Chapter 1.6.1 The productivity of post-editing that multiple factors, like text type, language pair and individual translator differences, may affect whether PE is faster than from-scratch translation (e.g., Aranberri et al., 2014; Jia et al., 2019; Terribile, 2024; Wang & Jalalian Daghigh, 2023). It is possible that one or more of these factors influenced the results of the present study, but an additional factor, the translators’ previous experiences with post-editing and translation, may have contributed to the lack of differences. Our findings suggest that MT cannot significantly help novice translators speed up their translation process, although with such a small sample, it is clearly impossible to arrive at any general conclusion. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that novice translation trainees experience significant uncertainty about whether to accept the translation versions suggested by MT or not. This may lead to spending excessive time on unnecessary verification of specific segments. This assumption, however, could only be confirmed by analysing process data.