Non-religious view of Yazid
Although presented in many sources as a dissolute ruler, Yazid energetically tried to continue his father's policies and retained many of the men who served him. He strengthened the administrative structure of the empire and improved the military defenses of Syria, the Umayyad power base. The financial system was reformed. He lightened the taxation of some Christian groups and abolished the tax concessions granted to the Samaritans as a reward for aid they had rendered in the days of the early Arab conquests. He also paid significant attention to agriculture and improved the irrigation system of the Damascus oasis.

Shi'a view of Yazid
For Shi'a Muslims, Yazid is the consummate villain, who will always be remembered for his murder of Husayn and persecution of his family. He is said to have been fond of wine and the company of courtesans, and completely careless of his religious duties.

The events at Karbala figure prominently in Shi'a thought, and many Shi'a Islamist movements liken their causes to Husayn's struggle against Yazid. Leaders of the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Pahlavi government frequently drew such comparisons. The 10th of Muharram (also known as Aashurah), the Islamic calendar date on which the Battle of Karbala occurred, is commemorated as a day of mourning by Shi'a Muslims around the world. Shi'a rituals on Aashurah usually involve public processions during which Shi'a Muslims curse Yazid and recite poems commemorating Husayn and his death. Shi'as around the world refer to Yazid as "the tyrant" and often add the word Lanatullah (which means May God's curse be upon him) after his name.

 Sunni view of Yazid
There is no Sunni consensus on the nature of Husayn's opposition to Yazid's rule and Yazid's culpability in Husayn's death. Some scholars have claimed that Husayn opposed Yazid's ascension to the Caliphate but did not actively revolt against him, and that Husayn's killing was ordered not by Yazid but by the Umayyad governor of Iraq, Ubaidallah ibn Ziyad[citation needed]. Others have refrained from taking a position on the matter, claiming that although Husayn's death was a tragic and unfortunate event, which showed how quickly the Muslim community deteriorated after the death of the Prophet, the evidence on exactly how it occurred and who bears responsibility is too inconclusive to merit judgment. This view is mainly taken by those who are concerned to maintain the reputation of Muawiyah as a wise and legitimate caliph. They do not wish to question Muawiyah's choice of his son as his successor, although they do not legitimize Yazid himself. However, some others have joined the Shi'a position, cursing Yazid and denouncing him as not only an illegitimate ruler but a non-Muslim. The majority view thus considers Yazid as illegitimate, indulgent, and criminal ruler, who was not only the first dynastic ruler, but directly or indirectly responsible for the killing of the descendants of the Prophet of Islam. In essense, thus, the Sunni view differs little from the Shi'i view, although some Sunni scholars have seen acts of cursing and demonization as bad, not because Yazid is not deserving of curses, but because it taints the soul and serves little purpose. Imam al-Ghazzali, thus, was reported to have said, 'Praising Husayn is better than cursing Yazid'.