Background-Induction of Labour (artificially initiated labour) is a common obstetric practice in pregnant women throughout the world, accounting for 20% of all births. Induction of Labour should be performed only when there is a clear medical indication for it and the expected benefits overweigh its potential harms. Objectives- to compare between the two formulations of dinoprostone and study the better option among the two, in cervical ripening and labour induction in women with unfavourable cervix. Methods- It was a Prospective randomized comparative study done in total 100 consecutive term pregnant women who underwent labor induction for fetal or maternal indications were divided randomly into two groups. Group A - sustained release vaginal insert and Group B - Intracervical gel. Informed consent was taken from each patient. SPSS (Version 22.0) was used for analysis. Results- Statistically significant increase in final Bishop’s score (p=0.01) and hyperstimulation (p=0.04) was seen in Vaginal insert group as compared to Intracervical gel group, while there were no statistically significant differences in maternal outcomes, neonatal outcomes and need for oxytocin augmentation in both groups.