While peer-editing is considered an important part of developing students' academic writing, questions remain about how different types of peer-editing affect subsequent student performance. The present study looked at a group of university students (N = 149) engaged in peer editing of one another's essays in an online security studies course. The analysis was conducted from two perspectives: feedback givers and feedback receivers. More specifically, the relationships between the giving of comments and tracking changes in peer's work and writing score on essays were explored. The results showed that there was a positive correlation between the total number of received comments and the student's writing score, whereas there was no correlation for the number of tracked changes (neither words deleted, nor words added). Surprisingly, students who assume that peers provide high quality tracked changes demonstrate worse writing performance. This research shows the importance of nuance in understanding peer editing types and their influence on students' performance, as well as highlighting potential complexities of the interplay between students' collaborative activities, their performance, and their attitudes.