Purpose: Part-time training offers general surgery trainees a pathway to improved work–life balance; however, concerns remain regarding its impact on clinical training quality, continuity of care, and trainee well-being. This study aimed to compare perceptions of training quality and well-being between part-time and full-time general surgery training. Methodology: A survey was conducted among general surgery trainees who had undertaken part-time training over a five-year period. Respondents rated domains of training quality, well-being, and handover practices using a 0–10 visual analogue scale (VAS), converted to a 100-point scale, with a 10-point difference considered significant. Comparative ratings were collected for both part-time and full-time training experiences. Results: Twenty-three trainees responded. Part-time training was rated more favourably for personal well-being, with marked improvements in work–life balance (+72.6), physical health (+69.9), and family time (+72.6). Sleep duration increased by almost two hours per night. Research productivity was rated higher (+50.4), and theoretical knowledge scores were superior during part-time training (81.0 vs 41.4). These benefits were offset by lower ratings for operative exposure (72.6 vs 84.4), patient continuity (56.0 vs 81.0), and post-operative follow-up (34.7 vs 59.1). Handover practices varied widely, ranging from daily to weekly or ad hoc exchanges, contributing to perceived inconsistencies in patient care. Conclusion: General surgery trainees perceived part-time training as strongly beneficial for well-being, theoretical knowledge, and research productivity. Contrastingly, reduced continuity of care and operative exposure were identified as key limitations. Standardised rostering and handover processes may help preserve the benefits of part-time training while safeguarding the quality of general surgery training.