BACKGROUNDProstaglandin E1 (oral misoprostol) and the other Prostaglandin E2 (Dinoprostone gel) are promising agents for cervical ripening and induction of labor.AIMS OF STUDYTo compare the efficiency and safety on maternal-fetal outcomes using 25 micrograms oral misoprostol PGE1 with 50 micrograms of intra-vaginal PGE2 for induction of labor.METHODSThis was a retrospective study design reviewing medical records of induced labor at Al Shifa hospital in Gaza Strip.RESULTSIn general, the results showed that women who used oral misoprostol with an age less than 30 years and parity less than 3 was effective for delivery and safe outcomes with an odds ratio (OR) of 15.8 (CI 6.9–39.8) and OR 29.2 (CI 10.7–80.3) respectively. The most common indication for labor induction in both methods was reputure of the membrane (ROM) more than 24 hours, postdates, and a medical disorder. However, the total interval hours for both methods was 8.4 hours. The mode of delivery was similar in both groups as vaginal delivery outcome was 73.6% for oral misoprostol E1 and 75% for prostaglandin E2 cases. However, PGE2 induction showed a higher cesarean delivery 25% rate versus 18.4%. Clinically the use of oral misoprostol showed a higher percentage of birth canal injury, failed induction, uterine rupture by 9.3%, 8%, 1.3% respectively. Fetal distress was found as the most common fetal complication and the most common cause for cesarean section.CONCLUSIONThe study recommended more research is needed as present evidence does not support use of oral misoprostol versus Prostaglandin E2.