ServiceNow Reviews

Most of our tickets go through ServiceNow.

Any tickets that we need to open in order to interact with other teams and make things happen go through ServiceNow. 

When I need to create an AWS account, I use ServiceNow. I need to use ServiceNow to request a new machine. 

We use ServiceNow for everything that requires us to interact with other teams.

They use it for internal communication across all departments.

What I believe works well is the chain of tasks that occurs when you follow up after completing a task. The subsequent chain of tasks, I believe, is valuable.

The interface, in my opinion, is not very good. It's very unclear where the status is and what steps I need to take next. I don't think the layout is very good.

The interface requires an upgrade. I'm not sure if I'm using the most recent version, which could be the issue. However, I don't have control over which versions we use, and I do find the interface to be very cumbersome, there is a lot of information here, and it's difficult to find what you are looking for. 

I find myself occasionally looking at the request and wondering if I already approved it or not because the status is a little strange. It's not great.

It's not very intuitive.

I interact with ServiceNow quite a bit. I have been using it for eight years.

ServiceNow is relatively stable. I haven't noticed any problems with stability.

I believe it scales well, but I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with the back end or how it's set up.

It performs well, I have never had any problems with performance.

The company employs over 40,000 people. I'm going to say that the majority of people will need to use it, or maybe half of them use ServiceNow extensively.

I've never had any contact with technical support.

Black Duck, Veracode, and SonarQube are some of the tools we use.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup because it was already in place when I joined the organization.

I've heard that some of its features are difficult to implement. I've never done it myself, but from what I've heard from other teams, it takes a long time to create a full flow. It's not quite that easy.

We have a team that handles updates, patches, and fixes.

I would rate ServiceNow a seven out of ten.

We use it as a tool to develop and monitor attestations and assessments where we develop questions based on our policies and ask application owners to explain and show compliance with our policies through a series of attestation questions.

I refer to it often when I'm looking up applications in the CMDB. The CMDB gives me a lot of information on the application in terms of what certain parameters are, who owns the application, and what's the structure of the organization owning the application. It gives me a fair amount of information.

We are using the latest version. We stay up to date with all the patches.

It helps with how well our applications are compliant with our policies, and that helps with the overall security of our applications. We are very detailed with our policies, and there is a buy-in for security across the company. So, we're able to show which applications are in compliance with the policies and which aren't, and we're able to target those that aren't for a little extra work and attention.

The thing that I like most about it is the easy integration with the CMDB. I'm able to look at the CMDB for applications and develop my assessments and attestations based on the application and point them at that application owner. So, I can really automate the whole thing.

Its setup is tough. It takes a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience.

In terms of features, we're pretty happy with the product as it is. They make regular improvements. We look at them, evaluate them, but we haven't seen anything that we wanted to use it for, though we continuously reevaluate our tools to see where we can expand our capabilities.

I have been using this solution for three years.

We find the product to be very stable. Because it is a cloud-based application, you have your issues with networks and all, but I don't consider that a part of the problem with the application. I find the application to be extremely stable.

It is fairly easy to scale. When you start adding a lot of different modules to it, it becomes a bit more complex, but if you have well-trained staff who can manage it in production, it becomes relatively simple, especially once you develop processes to handle that.

In terms of usage, just about everybody in the company uses it. If you're in technology or you're using technology, you use the interface with this application one way or the other. This is the company's ITIL tool. This is how we handle requests and manage the integrity of our systems and applications. I think it's going to be here for a while. How long? I can't tell.

Tech support is very knowledgeable. We've used them, and they've been very helpful. If someone is starting with ServiceNow, I would recommend them to spend a fair amount of time with their tech support. However, they do tend to point you towards some of their vendors who provide consulting services, and as with most consulting services, it can be all over the place.

We were using another solution. It was the standard for service management for so many years, but it was horrible. I don't remember the name.

The setup is tough. It takes a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience. So, you have to basically work with the product on an almost exclusive basis to become very knowledgeable. However, it is very powerful, especially once you have people who can write JavaScript and who can improve and make the product do a lot more than it does coming out of the box.

We have operations staff that handles the ongoing maintenance. It's not anything where we're having to pull down servers or anything. It's just managing access and maintaining the integrity of the CMDB. Everything else is just types of ITIL efforts such as handling tickets, processing requests. That's it. I find it very useful.

I cannot speak for the company in terms of what the company sees. All I can say is that from what I've used it for, it has been extremely valuable because I don't have to go around with spreadsheets to people. So to me, it is a return on efficiency.

For the modules we use, we found it competitive. I can't think of any costs in addition to the licensing fees.

My advice would be to look at it very carefully. It is a great product, but make sure that it fits your company culture and the way you want to do things because it is a big product.

I would rate it a nine out of 10.

We primarily use the solution for ITSM and a little bit of ITOM. However, we don't use it for ITBM.

Role-based access is a 'positive'.

ServiceNow has a feature called Orchestration. In that, you can utilize the tool to communicate with applications and systems to issue commands and perform actions. That's a positive, it's something that does exist in the tool. We are in our infancy in utilizing that.

There's a relatively new feature called performance analytics. It's supposed to provide a lot more information. It's got machine learning and some AI built into it. We're our infancy with that. 

For the nuts and bolts running of an IT organization, I can't really say there's anything lacking, feature-wise.

The solution is relatively easy to use.

One thing I don't care for is the reporting and the way it functions. Exporting a report, from a view,  initiates a rerun of the query in the background - highly inefficient.

In terms of the implementation, there seems to be a dearth of basic table joins, on initial install, necessitating the creation of your own database views to get seemingly related data to act like related data. In other words, it's popular to have incidents linked to changes, and linked to problems, and linked to other types of records. And vice versa, you could have an incidents caused by a change. You could have an incident that has a problem record built off of it. However, there are several modules where, if you don't create table joins - for example, for demand records and demand tasks - between those two, then the only option is pull two reports (one for Demands, one for Demand Tasks), and manually merge them outside of the tool. It's highly inefficient. That is something that is a deficiency within the tool design overall.

The initial setup is a bit complex (could have been designed to be profile-driven, as an alternative).

While I recognize that it's a popular thing to do, due to poor design, update sets have to be moved manually, from platform to platform, easily introducing errors (sequence, origin, etc.)  along the way. I've seen far better promote-to-production schemes with other tools.

I've been using ServiceNow for more than 5 years.

Scales 'up' well.  

Scales 'down' poorly.

The solution is not exactly scalable for a mom-and-pop shop (and SMBs). The costs would be too prohibitive for that.

Someone once said, a bird, no matter the size, has the same number of bones. If you're going to do incident change problem, asset config, things like that, for a mom-and-pop, technically, you have the same number of types of things you need to be concerned about. It's just the volume of how it's being applied. A mom-and-pop store might carry 50 items in its inventory. A large company is going to have thousands upon thousands. Therefore, ServiceNow would not be a good solution for a small organization with few assets. 

If you don't have a full CMDB to begin with it really makes a lot of things awkward within the tool. 

We have 4,000+ 

ServiceNow Technical support needs improvement.

One example - 

Order - (context - business rules) - ServiceNow allows you to have any number of rules with the same order number. 

ServiceNow's official answer to 'how does the database code decide which rule to execute first, when multiple business rules are assigned the same order level?': we have no answer 

(it goes without saying - use unique order levels)

We're just a customer and an end-user.

We started on-prem and then switched to cloud. We switched to the cloud about three years ago.

- fill out the CMDB before you start implementing the tool - make the time.

- plan out table joins as you implement new modules.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. I would just warn others that it's too easy to incorporate abysmally poor design.

I implement ServiceNow for our customers. I'm a reseller and we are partners of ServiceNow. I'm the company business developer.

From my point of view, it's the best solution in the market. It's so easy to implement, the ratio of days to implement is the lowest in the market; I can respond to all the needs of my clients. Based on my experience with BMC and EasyVista, ServiceNow is the best solution.

The price is a huge barrier in the Portugese market when it comes to implementing ServiceNow.

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

Technical support is the best because they respond quickly. They have good SLAs to respond to our tickets with the correct priorities, it's very well defined. Compared with other suppliers, it's fantastic.

The initial setup is very easy. Based on my experience with BMC and EasyVista, ServiceNow is the easiest solution to implement.

Licensing costs are the highest in the market. It's difficult to sell in Portugal, but for the rest of Europe, it's easy to sell because we can easily justify the value that the customer will gain from the product.

It's important to understand all the components of the solution. After that, with the base knowledge, it's easy to implement. It also helps to have some knowledge about processes based on the ITIL and ISO 20000. It's most important to become familiar with that to implement the solution.

I rate the solution nine out of 10. 

We use the solution primarily for IT Operations Management, SLA and ordinary day-to-day operations. We also use it for business dashboards and different groups within the company.

I like the solution very much. The majority of customers use it. It is one of the best, the most apt solution the industry has to offer. It is stable, scalable and easy to use. 

The total ITSM package offers availability, performance and scalability. 

I think the tool has matured sufficiently over the past six years that I do not see room for improvement. It comes with in-built capabilities and it is up to us to use it as we see fit. I would say it meets nearly every use case of ours. 

While we consider the solution to be fine, a weakness of it is that it is not on-premises. 

Security and privacy issues should be addressed in respect of the IT operations data and data storage. They should not be on a shared infrastructure, but on the SaaS in isolated storage. The solution should offer better security when it comes to storing data. 

We have been using ServiceNow for quite some time, perhaps as long as six years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I have encountered no issues with the technical support or its response time. I have found its response time to be prompt. 

The entire installation process is easy and very straightforward, which consists primarily of the installation of the tool and its configuration. We are talking about SaaS, software as a service installation, meaning one which is ready for use. As such, there is no real installation work involved. 

The installation period lasts from two to several weeks. A medium enterprise would have a two week installation period and a large one would have a month. 

Although I am not directly involved in the team staffing purposes relating to the installation, I would estimate that it would not involve more than five or six specialists. 

The license involves a multi-year contract. While the option exists to pay for a monthly license, we are dealing with large enterprises and these typically involve multi-year licenses of ten or five years, at a minimum. 

As systems integrators, we deploy the solution both on-premises and on the cloud, although it is mostly cloud-based. While we handle both on-premises and SaaS deployment, I am only addressing the aspects involving the latter. 

Globally, we manage in excess of 250 customers. We have a shared services model which serves more than one hundred customers. 

I do not feel it would be beneficial to explore other options beyond ServiceNow. 

I rate ServiceNow as an eight out of ten. 

Multi Tenant, Scalable, Flexible and Stable

It has improved out response time to the client

The reporting is very good. 

The solution has very good automation tools.

The solution has been extremely stable so far. 

The need to improve their technical support services. 

Their dashboards are very, very basic. Maybe if they could develop some sort of very good fancy-looking, visible, graphical, visible kind of appearance. 

The pricing of the solution could be better. It's a bit high.

When we are monitoring, for example, a device, an S-Switch, we can create insights. We can segregate the LAN, and create a VLAN. When we create those VLANs, we should be able to monitor those VLANs. The same with storage systems. The LANs, through the cable space level, should be able to be monitored. 

I've been working with the solution for eight or nine years so far. It's been almost a decade. I've used it for a while now. 

The stability is excellent. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. I find it to be reliable. 

The solution works very well for large enterprises. If you have a very, very big setup, it's an ideal option.

Technical support could be better. We are not satisfied with the level of support they offer.

I've also worked with SolarWinds and ManageEngine. I prefer ServiceNow, as there's a lot of automation tools available in that and it's been a stable product. It's been in the market for a long time. It's got a good market reach also.

Very Complex, 13 companies, 9 Towers, 17,000 devices

First time we implemented it through Vendor and we took a training from the OEM and now we have a team to deploy the solution

Not calculated, but I would say 2 years we recover the cost 

Their pricing is relatively high. They are expensive.

Yes,

SolarWinds and ManageEngine

We are not a partner or reseller. I'm a consultant. Before that, I have implemented the products. I've migrated a lot of products, a lot of systems. That's how I have an association with monitoring tools and service test tools.

I differently would recommend the solution if a company is a huge enterprise. For example, if you are maybe looking at more than some 10,000 or 20,000 devices. There should be a minimum of 10,000 devices or 15,000 devices. I would recommend ServiceNow for those setups. For data centers and other things, definitely I would recommend ServiceNow. I would not recommend SolarWinds or ManageEngine for these types of setups. I don't see that much capacity in them. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I like that in ServiceNow creating workflows is simpler than that in HP Service Manager. Also, I really like the customization feature. It allows us to customize the service portal and permits us to do a lot of customization per business needs.

It covers all the modules regarding ITSM, IT asset management, and customer service as well. That is, all modules are covered in the same platform.

It is very user friendly, and I've enjoyed using the dashboard and user interface.

Technical support is great, and a lot of documentation is available on Google.

There is a need to learn scripting because as in the case of all the ITSM tools, scripting is needed for customization. If you're not very comfortable with scripting, then you may feel that you cannot do everything in ServiceNow without learning scripting.

The licensing costs are high for companies in Tunisia.

I've been using the open source version for almost two years.

I have found it to be a stable, reliable solution.

I have discovered a lot of support and a lot of documentation on Google. So the information is always available.

Sometimes, I have opened a ticket to ask participants in the community, and I have always got an answer from support.

The initial setup is not complex.

In Tunisia, the companies find the licensing costs to be expensive.

I would recommend this solution because it's a very well performing solution. As a result, I would rate ServiceNow at ten on a scale from one to ten.

One of the benefits of the platform itself is that it's not covering IT service management only. It, for example, has price service management functionality. 

There are lots of modules around IT service management such as IT business management and human resource management (HRC). Bigger clients, enterprises, are often looking for end-to-end business flow automation. Part of those processes, in other cases, are standalone solutions. The ability to implement end-to-end flows, including business ones, is the most important aspect of the solution.

I sometimes try to compare ServiceNow with Micro Focus. When I worked with Micro Focus or HPE, I liked how they communicate with partners, how they provide materials. ServiceNow really does lots of things in this area, however, there is definitely some space for improvement there. For instance, some workshop materials, et cetera, are lacking. They need to be providing vendors and implementation partners with materials and guidance on implementation.

The solution is mostly on the cloud. On-premises implementations are more difficult. 

I've been using ServiceNow for the last five years. I remember my first implementation project was in 2017. Probably before that, I started using ServiceNow and did the training, et cetera.

The stability is pretty good. On average, I don't see many clients complaining about the performance side of stability or availability on the platform.

We did some cases to improve server functionality with scaling. We created clusters. In terms of the scalability of ServiceNow itself, several instances of ServiceNow with synchronization, et cetera, as well as performance, I don't recall scaling so much. In most cases, it's not really required as one instance of ServiceNow is good enough for most clients. They also handle all this backup, monitoring, and et cetera, internally. 

I rarely deal with technical support, as, most often at least, I focus our innovation on implementation projects. Support is more active when it's implemented already and rolled out to production. Other personnel from my department handle that, for sure. From my understanding, in terms of the quality of the support,  it's quite typical. Sometimes it could be better and faster. However, if we can imagine the flow of those tickets for the ServiceNow support side, I would imagine it's quite big. Therefore, I'd say that it's acceptable and understandable.

I also work with Atlassian's Jira Service Desk. I used to work with Service Manager five years ago.

For ServiceNow, I really like it's a single platform. Everything within the platform is integrated already. There are quite rich integration capabilities with other systems at the client-side. For Micro Focus, you can install it in the cloud or on-premises. ServiceNow doesn't really allow you to install anything on-premises. 

On the Micro Focus side, some of their products were really great, such as Universal CMDB or UCMDB. At some point, it's still better than the current ServiceNow CMDB. Some single individual products from Micro Focus were really great for me. However, in some cases, when you come into a client and try to solve a complex task, you need to map the requirements to particular products. For Micro Focus, sometimes it was problematic as you required many products solving more or less the same purposes. At ServiceNow, each module is quite unique and serving its unique purpose. It's more like LEGOs. 

With Micro Focus, I remember in some cases, their solutions were quite resource-consuming. It's pretty predictable since HPE at the time was both a software and hardware vendor. It was good for them to sell software plus hardware. Sometimes it was how to understand why particular software could consume so many resources. That's not a problem with ServiceNow at all as it's on the cloud mostly.

The initial setup is pretty clear. If we try to compare the implementation of some traditional modules, like incident management, request fulfillment, it's an industry standard. It's very good. ServiceNow, from a functionality and partner support perspective, has lots of materials. However, when it comes to some newer modules, some ITBM applications, et cetera, sometimes when they just release the first version of the module, and it might be a bit different from a functionality perspective. There's a lack of documentation and support. That's quite typical. I feel like Hewlett-Packard pays a bit more attention to that.

We're implementors. We implement the solution for our clients.

ServiceNow is still mostly used as an ITSM platform. And IT service management mostly feeds some kind of internal purposes. It's not a business-related platform. It's supposed to save money, not to help to earn money.

Some clients come in to get some help with the reimplementation of a platform. Others are looking for certain improvements to the existing platform. In some cases, it's a greenfield implementation. For greenfield implementations, especially when it comes to big enterprises, the question behind the scenes is we don't really understand how much we spend on IT. There are likely many unrelated budgets, which are not even visible. The first question is how much you really spend. And if they get an answer to this question, it's already a good achievement. 

Over time, we baseline the spending and we implement new functionality and new processes, new modules. In some cases, it's quite expensive compared to the business itself. By that, I mean, the processes we implement. We may have 20 people doing some job and if you look at their salaries for a couple of years, it's a lot. We come in and implement and automate the process for them, and in those cases, it might be five years of salaried budget saved. However, that's years. You won't see the savings immediately. It will be something witnessed over time.

We're a ServiceNow partner. We help to implement ServiceNow for our clients.

We're working on likely the latest version of the solution. ServiceNow provides upgrades two times a year. Previous versions get obsolete so that you can't actually use them.

I often see that people tend to simplify things and they expect any system, no matter if it's ServiceNow or any other system or platform from the area, that the implementation would solve the entire ATSM matter. However, in fact, with ATSM, it's about products, people, processes, and partners. All the efforts should be covered. No solution is a silver bullet.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. it's a very good solution, however, there's always room for improvement.