• C4.5 and C5.0 outperform Random Forest in landslide susceptibility analyses. • Use of balance vector data improves the performance of Random Forest. • Including all conditioning factors improve landslide susceptibility results. • Difference in C4.5 and C5.0 results for raster and vector data is marginal. The effects of landslides have been exponentially increasing due to the rapid growth of urbanization and global climate change. The information gained from predictive models and landslide susceptibility analyses can be used to develop warning systems and mitigation measures. A comparative study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of landslide susceptibility analyses in a given area using three decision tree algorithms including Random Forest (RF), C4.5, and C5.0. Two sets of imagery datasets (raster and vector) were used and three combinations of 13 conditioning factors (including seven geotechnical properties of the soil) were determined by Information Gain, Gain Ratio, Chi-Squared Test, and Random Forest Importance. Datasets for the landslide conditioning factors were created based on the outcomes from the feature selection methods, in three different scenarios. In Scenario 1 the least important factors/features (as identified by information gain, chi-square, and gain ratio measures) were eliminated. In Scenario 2 only the most important factors (as identified by RF feature selection method evaluation) were kept. In Scenario 3, no factor was eliminated, using the data directly obtained from the sources without applying any feature selection method. The performances of the models were evaluated using statistical verification scores. C4.5 was found to have the highest performance when all 13 conditioning parameters (Scenario 3) were used for both the raster and vector data set. The RF model was the least effective in predicting the landslides in all three scenarios. However, the use of the balance vector dataset significantly increased the performance of the RF model. C4.5 and C5.0 had significantly better performance in handling extremely unbalance data in comparison to RF. Density, silt and clay content, and Atterberg's limits (LL and PI) were the most important geotechnical conditioning factors in the performed landslide susceptibility analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]