Background and Objectives Gradually varied flow is one of the common profiles of open channel flow which takes place in canals and natural conduits due to hydraulic structures and morphological causes. Spatial variations of flow characteristics is one of the most apparent properties of Gradually varied flow that its precise calculation through accurate solution of dynamic equation of Gradually varied flow has significant role. Three main approaches to solve dynamic equation of Gradually varied flow are analytical, numerical and graphical ones. Of these mentioned methods, direct integration of dynamic equation of Gradually varied flow is the most accurate method. Gaussian hyper-geometric functions (GHF), which has been considered in this research work, is one of the approaches to integrate directly of dynamic equation of Gradually varied flow. Creation of dimensionless form of dynamic equation of Gradually varied flow is the basis of the GHF method. This is done using normal depth of flow (yn-based method) or critical depth of flow (yc-based method). At the end of the paper, a comparison has been performed between GHF method and Rong-Kutta numeric method to predict GVF profile in a rectangular laboratory flume for three M1, S2 and C3 profiles. Methodology The GHF solver (F2 1(a, b; c; z)=Γ (c)Γ (a)Γ (b)Σ Γ (a+k)Γ (b+k)Γ (c+k)k! zk∞ k=0) has been implemented to integrate differential dynamic equation of GVF [dydx=So-Sfcosθ-α Q2TgA3]for five channel slops including Mild (M), Steep (S), Horizontal (H), Critical (C) and Adverse (A). Dimensionless form of GVF equation makes it easy to integrate using GHF solver. Due to the absence of normal depth for horizontal and adverse slopes, yc was used to produce dimensionless form of GVF equation for H and A slopes. Other three slopes were made dimensionless using yn. For the first scenario, two dimensionless parameters were defined as v=yyc and x#=xSc*yc. The correspondes parameters for the second scenario were u=yyn and x*=xSo*yn. The final integrated forms of the GVF equation include the hydraulic exponents as M and N which can be solved for certein values of M and N. To compar the results between numerical (Runge-Kutta 4th order method) and analytical (GHF) solvers, lobaratory GVF data measured from a rectangular flume of length 7 m, width 0. 1 m, height 0. 3 m and roughness 0. 011 were used. Three profiles as M1, S2 and C3 were formed experimentally to measure the GVF characteristics. Also, three performance assessment indices as RMSE, R2 and E were applied to compare the solvers accuracy. Findings Two analytical answers (overall 10 answers) were obtained to solve Gradually varied flow dynamic equation. The first group belongs to the channels of slope types namely M, S and C. The second one can be used for the slopes of types H and A. These two mentioned group answers should be used according to the profile name and corresponding zone. Regarding to the laboratory measured data of GVF profiles, results showed that application of GHF not only resolve discretization selection for numerical methods, but also predicts GVF profile characteristics more accurate than to the numerical Rong-Kutta 4th order solver. The amount of the (RMSE, R2, E) for the M1, S2 and C3 profiles for GHF were (0. 0173, 0. 9986, 1. 11), (0. 0167, 0. 9984, 1. 12) and (0. 0204, 0. 9988, 0. 985), respectively; while the corresponding values of numerical solver were calculated as (0. 0458, 0. 9864, 4. 05), (0. 0259, 0. 991, 2. 38) and (0. 0327, 0. 985, 3. 65). These values prove the superiority of GHF predictor. Conclusion Gradually varied flow profiles are common at the flow conduits with hydraulic structures. Predicting flow characteristics of GVF can be achievable through solving differential dynamic equation. In this paper, GHF was applied to solve the equation analytically. The obtained analytical answers can be used for all zones of five channel slope types.