What do people hope to achieve when they take revenge against a person who has treated them unfairly? One answer, based on balance-theoretical approaches, could be that a central feature of revenge is to make the offender suffer just as much as the victim has suffered himself (comparative suffering hypothesis). If this was true, then it should make no difference who administered the suffering, i.e., the victim, a third person, or fate. Another answer could be that revenge aims at delivering a message between the avenger and the offender. If this was true, then revenge should only be satisfactory if the offender received and understood the message (understanding hypothesis). Three studies, an online-based vignette study and two laboratory experiments, are presented in which the comparative suffering and the understanding hypothesis are tested. It was manipulated whether the offender was harmed by the hands of the victim (revenge) or by the hands of fate, and whether or not the offender understood the harmful event as a consequence of his prior unfair behavior. The victim's self-reported satisfaction was the central dependent variable in all three studies. Findings converge in that the comparative suffering hypothesis (seeing the offender suffer is satisfactory) should be rejected. The understanding hypothesis (satisfaction occurs whenever the offender signals understanding), however, is supported by the overall pattern of results.