ServiceNow Reviews

We use the solution to manage a suite of applications.

The solution has an efficient code engine. It helps implement the workflows very well.

The solution's stability and pricing need improvement.

We have been using the solution for eight years.

It is a stable solution, and I rate its stability a seven. Although, the troubleshooting functions are complicated to use.

It is a scalable solution. I rate its scalability as an eight out of ten. 

The solution's initial setup process is easy. The time taken depends on the volume of code.

The solution is expensive. I rate its pricing a seven.

It is a good tool; I rate it a nine out of ten. I advise others to ensure that it fits their business use cases.

I previously used the on-premise version of ServiceNow. It was a better fit for companies and banks because of their tech security protocols. But for my work with my current company, I am considering the cloud solution because we already have all the other software components in AWS.

The main features of ServiceNow that I use are incident approval management and the ability to link all the information we receive from the finance bureau service. We needed to track the different processes within the IT area and incident documentation. Then we gathered all the information and built a knowledge base. That's the central core functionality that I've been using, and I've seen immense benefits.

We are elaborating and defining the business processes, so I will believe that we will be able to avoid the older models for the second phase. But first, I wanted to have these incident and asset management models in place as a first phase of the implementation.

I've been using ServiceNow for work I've done with various clients for around eight years. I first used it with Wal-Mart International, and then we used it for one event with Brolin Management. I recently worked with Santander Bank, where we used ServiceNow for all the incident and assets management. Now, I help implement different service management tools at my current company, including ServiceNow.

I think ServiceNow is highly stable. These kinds of tools are used in a big company, and I haven't seen any issues in terms of the core platform. However, if we need to customize something, that would be the point to focus on because this would be something new, not a part of the standard flow for the tool.

I think ServiceNow is scalable in the short term. 

The solution has some built-in monitoring capabilities, so we escalate cases as they come. But sometimes the response to our requests is delayed.

Setting up ServiceNow is pretty standard because we want it to manage incidents and use it for other marketing, construction, and procurement areas. But, still, everything would be based on the different services we provide for their operations area. If you move forward with the cloud, I think the number of internal staff needed would be minor. It probably takes around two people to deploy and manage. In this case, we use some external consultants for all the development and maintenance.

For us, it's better to pay the licenses monthly, and I mean when we move ahead with the cloud deployment. I understand that the service includes hosting and licensing as a service as well as some downgoing costs probably. That will be all on the implementation side. It depends if we need some customization. We will need to consider that part as a consultancy. 

I will rate ServiceNow nine out of 10 because it's a little expensive compared to other tools, but it's a very good product from a technical standpoint.

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.

We use it for interim problem change configuration, regress management, and knowledge management.

I've found a lot of pros with ServiceNow. The user interface and the feasibility to modify the GUI are great features.

It is easily configurable and has a good developer society online, available for any issues from the backend.

On the front end, we have good workflow management, ease of work, and ease of business. It helps us to translate the business requirements and technical requirements in an easier manner.

One of the best things is the reporting; I like how you can manage the data and present it.

ServiceNow is also stable and scalable, and has good technical support.

Vulnerability management could be improved. Also, integration with tools such as Microsoft Defender ATP needs improvement.

The price is on the higher end.

I've been using it for four years.

In the last four years, we might have had an outage, but the stability is very good. Since it's cloud-based, we don't see many performance issues.

Scalability wise, we added one more module for the vulnerability response, and we have not faced any issues.

We are happy with where we are, but we are adding on a few things. Whenever there's a new requirement that comes up, we plan to move away from the manual work, and we try to do everything in ServiceNow.

We have two types of users: the idea user who actually works on the solution and the requester who raises the request. In total, the end users that have access to raise the tickets are around 13,000 plus, and those who actually work on the solution, designing, working on the tickets, etc., are in total around 300 plus.

The technical support is good. They're responsive, and they keep a tab on whatever issues we are facing. They have a dedicated team that handles them and even a dedicated portal where you can raise tickets and flag them.

I was using Remedy and HP Service Manager. We switched because of ServiceNow's scalability, stability, and the user interface. I believe that the business mindset of whoever created or expanded ServiceNow was to make sure that we have a good developer community with an open system for people to understand and expand their knowledge, a better UI, and better workflow management, which I did not see in Remedy. 

Remedy has a lot of constraints; the integration and referencing had issues. ServiceNow has an option of referencing many tables in one form, but that was not available in Remedy. Also, Remedy was not that scalable.

We needed a person to have good technical knowledge to consider the system, but with ServiceNow, you don't need technical knowledge; they have made everything UI. So, that's a good thing.

The cost might be on the higher side, but the services were better, so we chose ServiceNow.

The initial setup was straightforward. They have out of the box solutions readily available, so if you're just going by the out of the box configuration, it might take a few months. Maybe a 12 week period is good enough to get it up and running.

We got the ServiceNow vendor team to help us with the initial setup.

Overall, I have seen a substantial ROI when it comes to reporting: a faster response and also the assignment of tickets. If you have to talk to your leadership and tell them what the status of a particular project is, you can create your own dashboards, which will give them a glimpse of everything in one go. They won't have to talk to you every time; they can just open it up.

The second ROI is that you don't have to log into ServiceNow every time; you can integrate ServiceNow with teams, Microsoft teams, or any other tool, and you will get the notifications over there itself. It saves a lot of time from that perspective.

The licensing is on a yearly basis. The pricing is on the high side, but if you look at the stability and option to work, it's kind of justified.

When you buy the license, it also comes with the yearly tech support. So, you don't have any additional costs per se.

We moved away from HPSM to ServiceNow, and we evaluated Remedy.

They have a lot of libraries available online. If you are planning to implement ServiceNow, you should first compare your current system with the online free developer instance from ServiceNow, which has all the features that are present in the licensed versions.

I would suggest that you see if the added business is supported in ServiceNow so that when you implement the system, you can raise these special issues with the consultants.

You should go ahead and create your own instances and see whether the system is working as expected and whether it suits your requirements. When you're implementing, make sure that you implement everything and don't leave parts for your own team to handle. Get everything done by the vendor in the first go.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate ServiceNow at ten.

I don't actually use this solution directly. We're a partner so we typically find a customer and do the necessary RSC, etc. I am responsible for managing a team of 19 professionals that use this solution and others. I've used ServiceNow in the past, but I am not currently using it.

For starters, the mobile capability is very European-focused and my primary work location is actually the Middle East. ServiceNow doesn't cater to the Middle Eastern market. For this reason, we actually had to develop our own solutions in order to accommodate our customers that need an interface in Arabic. ServiceNow doesn't support that. It doesn't have a language patch for that at all. 

In addition, having a ServiceNow portal that has to be accessed via a browser on a mobile device is not always ideal for customers. Having a mobile application that specifically caters to those aspects, that provides users with access through the ServiceNow portal, is very important. 

I have been using ServiceNow for 13 years. 

I think the technical support is pretty good. They can be a little bit slow sometimes, but overall I think they're good.

From a licensing perspective, various partners negotiate the price with ServiceNow directly. Certainly, from a product-platform perspective, the price is not too bad. I suppose it could be a little bit cheaper. We do get customers that complain that the product is expensive compared to others in the market.

If you're interested in using this solution, contact us, we'll do it for you. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give ServiceNow a rating of nine. 

We primarily use the solution for IT service management and then we're using it for custom applications. That includes digitizing workflows and helping our company with that.

The solution was bought for ITSM and we have also bought the Pro package, meaning that we have particular AI capabilities, among other features, that are quite useful. 

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the possibility of the application development cap so that we can digitize workflows.

The solution scales well.

We've found the product to be quite stable so far.

When ServiceNow adds new features we have seen a tendency that they are very immature. They may release items too soon. In a company where you need to tweak and adjust, then I think there are so many improvements to be done.

If you have advanced questions, technical support often doesn't know the answer.

The stability has been good so far. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

We have five engineers on the solution, and then 375 users and 200 App Engine users.

The solution is quite easy to scale. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so relatively easily.

I've been in touch with technical support both directly and indirectly.

Their level of support is about the same as Microsoft. If you ask advances questions, however, it's difficult for them to help. They need to be more knowledgeable about the product itself - especially in regards to advanced features.

I would say that we are not completely satisfied with their level of service.

I didn't handle the initial implementation and I wasn't part of the team that did. I can't speak to how easy or difficult it was to implement or what the deployment process looked like. I'm not sure how long it took.

The solution is on the cloud and therefore doesn't require any maintenance.

The solution is a bit expensive. We have bundled it into our three licenses. It's difficult to actually say if they are more expensive than, for example, PowerApps, since everything is bundled together.

I've looked at PowerApps. I'd say that ServiceNow has smaller features. The pricing is likely the same.

We are customers and end-users of the solution.

I'd recommend this solution to other organizations.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We mainly use it for requests and tracking incidents. We are onboarding our HR team, and they are going to start using the HR module in it as well. We also use it for asset management and configuration management. 

We are using the Paris release.

I like the incident module, which is useful for tracking your incidents and other things. It is a reliable solution.

We are struggling with the scheduling part, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a ServiceNow issue. It could be the way we have configured it. We don't have it configured in a way where you can schedule a support call with our end users.

We are looking for more automation in the box and the chat feature.

We've been on ServiceNow for two years.

It is stable. There are no issues at all.

We have around 60,000 or 70,000 users or maybe more.

I haven't contacted them.

We used an IBM tool. We switched because we were told that we were switching.

I didn't set it up, but it is pretty simple.

It is a great tool. Most companies in my industry use ServiceNow.

I would rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.

This solution is used for ticketing, reporting, and changes as well as for operations and incident handling. We always use one version prior to the latest one within the environment.

It provides us visibility into how we're responding to business needs. If somebody requests a new user account, a new computer, or something else, there are SLAs that have been agreed upon between different departments and business organizations. We can run weekly and monthly reports to get visibility into how we're responding to business needs.

It enables us to meet SLAs, track issues across the environment, and report those issues.

The level of complexity and the level of discovery are the two areas that can be improved. Its UI needs to evolve. They focus a lot on cool colors and other little things, which don't bring value in terms of functionality. They need to focus less on presentation and more on the functionality within the UI.

Its discovery mechanism should be improved. There is a component in ServiceNow that discovers the assets, but it doesn't do an immediate discovery, and there is a lag. If I want to open a ticket for a laptop or an asset, that asset needs to exist within ServiceNow for me to be able to say that I need to have its disk space or memory increased. It is referred to as a CI or configuration item in ServiceNow. Sometimes, ServiceNow doesn't discover these items, and as a result, I cannot open a ticket and tag that system or asset. If a system was introduced to the environment last week and it is still not listed, it becomes a problem. I will either have to wait or manually enter that system or asset. So, if I have a laptop with only 8 GB of memory and I want to request 16 GB of memory, I won't be able to do that in ServiceNow because my system or asset hasn't been discovered yet. Discovery is not immediate, and there is a lag. 

I have been using this solution for around four years.

It is a stable solution.

We're a small company with less than 10,000 endpoints. I would be able to tell you about scalability only if we had more endpoints, such as over 100,000. Currently, its usage is 100% because everybody is using the tool. On a daily basis, we have less than three percent usage, which would be 300 use cases on daily basis.

They are awesome and great. I wrote the API bidirectional connector from Splunk to ServiceNow, and I've worked with them, and they are awesome.

I have been with this company for four years. When I came into the company, this solution was already in place.

I was not here when implementation was done, so I can't provide information about the challenges that had to be overcome when the solution was implemented, but I do know that it was implemented by a third party called Accudata. We did not implement it in-house. It was a managed service initially.

I would advise having a close relationship with the people who are implementing it and staying on top of it. You should meet every day to address any problems that are encountered. 

I would rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.