ServiceNow Reviews

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 use this solution for handling help desk tickets and tasks.

I like the workflow functions that are available in ServiceNow and the ability to actually integrate all of the information that you have such as travel tickets or assignment tickets for your team, onto your dashboard, depending on your setup, or if you create a ticket and a dashboard for your team.

When you update them in one place, it will show you updates in other places. 

I like that functionality.

ServiceNow has more capability and the ability to integrate other solutions such as Excel or tables.

You can put information in or export it out quickly, which is very useful when you have weekly or monthly reports.

When it comes to changing some of the features, I would like a little more leeway.

This may not apply to every version but there are certain capabilities that you have to specifically order a la carte in order for the developers or your administrators to have access.

Having more integration without having to pay the a la carte, otherwise, you have to put in a ticket and have it approved, and if not you have to find a workaround for the solution.

I have been working with ServiceNow for five years.

We are using the most up-to-date version.

I definitely like the scalability, because if you have a small company or if you have a large enterprise, It allows you to tailor it.

The scalability of it is very good and putting it on the server, makes it very useful.

Their technical support was overall helpful. 

A lot of it ended up actually being directed to the administration. ServiceNow developers and any support issues primarily go to them. 

When I was researching to implement ServiceNow for another group, I contacted technical support and they were extremely helpful.

They set up meetings and were willing to talk through everything, to help us meet or help answer questions for our stakeholders.

It was very easy to set up. It was very easy to make sure things were activated.

Once you get the base up, it's easy to start to build out.

There are templates that are available, and you also have the ability to create your own.

It's very quick to implement.

The cost is the only area that I have never been privy to. 

I know that the price is not too bad because people continue to use it and they are happy to renew their contract. But I've never been given the actual cost of it.

I would recommend that they have a meeting with their salesperson and go through the demo that they offer. I also recommend that they have their administrators or the people that are going to use it, sign up for the ServiceNow training that they offer. 

Those are the two things that I definitely recommend before they use it. Other than that, it's really integrated.

I still have my ServiceNow login where I can go to a test site and test things out before we put them into real production.

I would rate ServiceNow an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this product is for incident and change management. We are customers of ServiceNow and I work as a senior software development engineer. 

The reporting details and easy access of the data has improved addressing the customers issues.

I think the incident management, change management and problem management features are the best. They are very good and I like all three of them. If most of our customers could learn the benefits of these three features, that would be great. 

Another advantage of this solution is that we can get a detailed analysis on each incident; how long it took for resolution, how long it was on the client side, a detailed time base. Detailed reporting is another valuable feature and our customers comment on it too. 

This is an expensive solution and I think that could be reduced. What I've noticed from talking to some of our clients is that most are not renewing their licenses because it's so expensive. Pricing is one of the main factors customers check when comparing tools and solutions on the market. 

I think an additional feature that they could include would be a defect management system that ServiceNow doesn't currently have. It would be the best product in the market if they included that. It would make it a one-stop solution. They already have the incident management, problem and change management. Everything is there. So if they include this defect management, then it would definitely be the best in its category.  I would recommend Servicenow should include the defect management feature like JIRA.

I've been using this solution for five years. 

Servicenow is a stable product which is an advantage for the business.  As per the current business trends and requirements the expected availability of the products are around 99.9% availability.  hence, we cannot afford the frequent outages 

Because it's a cloud-based technology, it's scalable and convenient.  

Service now is a cloud based technology and its easy to increase or decrease the compute based on the load factors like no of users and based on the no of users increase, we can scale up the infrastructure of the servers. Apart from that any patch upgrades of OS or bug fixes can be done without any outage. Otherwise, in the legacy systems we need to take outages for any upgrades or patch deployments and which impacts the business.

We have a local vendor who assists us with technical support. They provide good assistance. 

Earlier we were using the HP Service desk

The initial setup can be a little on the technical side so we are lucky we have the tech staff. Without that, we'd need to take a service provider or third party vendor to help with deployment which generally takes one to two weeks. It's important to have technical people involved in the implementation, otherwise it's quite difficult.

through vendor team

The pricing is little bit high.  However, i would like to give some more recommendations like if servicenow can include other modules like Defect management and server monitoring and automatic inventory update then it can be a "Value for Money" and users will not feel overpriced for what other products are providing in the market with lesser price.

I believe the cost is around $1200 per user for year and which is quite expensive.  If Servicenow comes up with the appropriate cost then definitely it will be the best product in the category of cost wise as well.

I was not part of the evaluation team.  

I would recommend this solution, it's really an excellent tool in comparison to the current market tools like SCP and a lot of other tools out there. I can rank it as number one. The price is the only factor which is an issue. Because of Covid, companies are thinking about  how to reduce licensing costs. I've made a comparison between ServiceNow and other tools, and I'm not satisfied with the others. But licensing costs are so high that we sometimes have to go for other products for our customers. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. If they would lover the price, I'd rate it a 10 out of 10. 

We use the solution as it's a requirement for our standards of use in the future. I primarily use the product to look for tickets. I also check for future projects and so on.

The solution is very easy to use.

Now that I've worked with it a little bit, I can find what I need rather quickly.

It was pretty easy to implement the solution.

The solution is quite sizable. There are a lot of features.

It can scale well.

The product is stable.

The solution integrates well with other products.

We've been pretty happy with the level of support they offer their clients.

A new user does need training or time to learn the solution before jumping in. It was very hard in the beginning to understand everything. I couldn't find the models I needed at the time.

I've only been using the solution for a few months. It's only been a rather short amount of time.

The stability of the product is good. There aren't bugs or glitches to deal with. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, they can do so.

At our organization, there are about 300 users on the product currently.

We'll be using the solution into the future.

The solution has fairly good technical support. We're pretty satisfied with their level of service. I'd say they are responsive and knowledgable.

We previously used HP before switching to this product.

The solution was easy to implement as it wasn't styled out. It wasn't too complex.

Normally there is staff training near the beginning. This is not the case anymore. You can use it right away, however, it is difficult in the beginning, coming at it from a new user's perspective. That's the main thing to keep in mind. Organizations should be aware of this at the outset and plan for it.

During the implementation, we did get help from outside sources. This assisted in the setup process. It helps if a company gets training before as well.

I'm not responsible for licensing and therefore don't have any information in terms of pricing or cost structure. It's not something that I need to worry about in my day to day.

I assume that we are using the most up to date version of the solution. 

I would recommend the solution.

On a scale from one to ten, overall, I would rate it at an eight.

The flexibility of the platform, being able to modify forms or modify workflow, building applications, utilizing basics that they've given you and being able to expand them to adapt to your own personal environment. Everybody says that "This isn't how ITIL works" or "You shouldn't be doing this." I'm like, "But ITIL is a framework, that's the whole point of it" so that you can ingest what you need within your environment. The product is malleable. You can change it around to do what you need to do. If you need certain configuration items or certain categories or certain subcategories, you can make it work for your environment.

I think the value comes from centralizing processes across business units. I've seen it where we started in IT and then we've brought in teams like library functions or secretarial support, security auditing for cybersecurity needs, making sure that your meeting a new type of governmental regulations, and things of that nature. I think it's not about just utilizing it in one particular business area. It's something that can be used across departments and I think that's what's best about it.

I think that the product has grown considerably over the last few years. Initially, I had some issues with just ease of use. I was on Fuji before I started at my current employer. I came in and they're on Geneva. Between Fuji and Geneva, it's just total rework of just the way that the UI looks. I think it's more appealing to the eye. I think that it is easier to use than it used to be. A lot of the having to code and having to know how to use java and all that kind of stuff just wasn't as easy for us non-coding type of individuals. Now that you have like the little point and click and more non-coding development, it's much better.

I think more progression like on the visual task boards. There are some things that are there that seem a little quirky. If you want to move something to a visual task board and when you go into it, it can't really update it in the fashion that I would like to see. You have to click on the number and then it opens up another form. I think a little easier updating processes to their visual task board.

I think a little bit more ease of when you're using the email flow. If I'm emailing something into the primary email address for ServiceNow that it could parse out particular things from the content of the email instead of just from the to or from or the subject line. That would be something that would be a value add.

Deployment, no. I don't think it's really deployment, I think it's more of individuals just getting used to if they're not used to something like ServiceNow. Getting used to the way that ServiceNow works. The concept of ServiceNow users and just getting to understand "Can you have notifications for this?" or "Do you want notifications for this?" Those types of things. I think it's hard when users are going through change whenever to modify something and then they take that grace period where they can get used to something new.

Not in the newer versions. I would say that years ago before ServiceNow really went through a big development of backend data infrastructures and fault tolerance. Today, I haven't really seen any of those types of things.

It's actually pretty easy. When you have a new IT person that comes in, you put them in the appropriate groups, you should sit them down, you kind of explain your process flow and how to utilize it. I think one of the easiest things with ServiceNow is the fact that when you log in, you're in groups and if you go to incident, my work, there's all of your work right there. Then the reporting function, it just takes it to the next level because you can go in and say, "Well, this might be my work, but how many things have I closed or opened?" or "What do I have pending?" Just different things that you can do with it to understand.

At my previous firm, we used Remedy. My current firm previously used something called HiQ Tracker or something like that.

There were other products that have been used before, but mostly IT wants to go into making sure we're using the best framework, ITIL framework, ITIL processes, making sure that you're using metrics and tracking and understanding where all of your resources are being utilized across your infrastructure so that you can get the best value out of the people that you have on staff.

For me, it was easy. I would say that for some individuals who are not very exposed to ITIL concepts, it can be very hard because they've never been exposed to the whole language, that whole concept, and framework of your problem, incident, and change. Most people, if they've never used ServiceNow before, continue to call incidents, tickets or calls or cases. For some of them to get used to the language, I think that that's where the implementation can get a little hard for individuals and they can get a little frustrated because not everyone is on the same language.

If you're really wanting to understand the time and the effort and the amount of work that flows through your organization, utilizing ServiceNow can help you really build that infrastructure out by tracking incidents and then taking incidents to problems and making sure you have a changed infrastructure, really understand how much downtime you could have with an environment. You can understand how much time the service desk is spending per call, how long your engineers are taking to really resolve a larger issue or deploy an upgrade. From building those processes and then having metrics and KPIs and dashboards, your executive management can really see how much time and effort and if you need more resources within your environment. I was able to show that I needed more staffing just from using reports out of ServiceNow and I was able to show how much of incident climbed within our environment and the gap between two years before and how large we had grown, just an incident processing. Showing how much downtime within our infrastructure had occurred and were we meeting downtime, requirements from our SLAs and organizational requirements.

I think I've been using it for nine years. I think it has changed considerably over the nine years and has gotten much, much better. You can't give something a 10 because there's always room for improvement.

As I'm a developer, what I would say is that it's very flexible. The tool can be fully customized. You can do anything to everything, and so I would say that would be the key feature for me as a developer. I can do whatever the client asks for as everything is possible.

Let's say what happens is the customers want rapid delivery to get their operations. So for that they need something to be implemented, at least a vanilla system very easily. So ServiceNow's out-of-the-box features are so good to start with and then down the line, let's say they use it for three months, then it's very easy to just change things.

First of all, nowadays customers are moving all their native applications into ServiceNow. So it's definitely a kick start for them to start using the out-of-the-box features, and then realizing the potential of this tool, and then start getting their native applications loaded to ServiceNow. And eventually down the line after a few years, all their applications will be in ServiceNow. So now you have a single source of truth.

It's mature, but I would say that there are a couple of models, which I think in ITSM, they are not that mature yet. They're still doing it, and definitely even to customize it, but I am talking the out-of-the-box product. When you say ITSM, some of the processes I would say aren't that mature enough because I also have gone through the ITL training.

In particular I would say the SLA, but they have a new release. They have added a couple of features and that should suffice. That was the gap of the earlier version.

There were issues deploying Fuji, but not after that.

It's a very new system, and we see bugginess. In Helsinki we found that we were using one feature but we kept getting errors. I thought it was something that I did, so I spent three or four hours and I couldn't get my answers. So then I realized I basically re-realized when I spoke to ServiceNow people and they troubleshooted that it was a bug. In terms of performance it's very good.

It's very scalable. I've been working with two major clients and they're pleased with scalability.

The biggest part is the ServiceNow community. It's very active, and you can just type anything in Google, it's very easy. You'll get answers that way.

I have experience with HP Service Management. That's how I started my career. So in terms of the processes, both are good. While HP was also mature, ServiceNow processors have flexibility which is and that's amazing, and it's easy as well.

When a customer starts with ServiceNow, they go with it out-of-the-box, that's very easy. Just a couple of configurations here and there without any customizations. That's very easy in terms of implementation, and even customizations, it's pretty easy. It's smooth, and that's why we as product developers like the product, because it's too flexible. It's very flexible.

You need to look at what tool you're currently using, what gaps you have, and what pain areas could easily be fixed by the flexibility of ServiceNow. Based on that I would say, OK, why go with ServiceNow and not continue with the one that you're using.

The first thing is it's openness, since we're a Remedy shop right now. With Remedy, half of it's probably how we implemented but it's very closed off. It's really difficult to get anything new added to it. 

The big 'features' are the openness and ease of use. It's very intuitive, and it seems very straightforward to the point where, "It's got to be something I'm missing here." It's very simple to do things versus Remedy. I feel like, "Are there features missing here?" It doesn't seem hard enough to use. 

I went through training and everything. I realize that it does as much as Remedy plus much more. Openness and ease of use are the two big things right there.

We have Remedy right now, and currently, we struggle with process, as does everyone, so we're hoping that because ServiceNow is easier to use, easier to build and that we can actually get our processes up and running. I know personally you have to have processes before you buy a tool set. We tend to do it at the same time. The whole business that with this new tool set we can finally get our processes define, implemented, because that's really a struggle.

I don't have enough experience to really say a lot about this. Maybe, the one thing we're looking for especially, after being at Knowledge 16 is best practices. I'm looking at it going, "I'm a developer by training. I could cause so many problems with this system. I could create things in it that I shouldn't. I could use it for things that I shouldn't."

That's the one thing, it's like a Swiss Army Knife. I shouldn't do surgery with it, but I probably could. That'll probably be the biggest thing, is right now since we're new to it. We need to learn how to answer "What shouldn't we do?" It's so flexible to actually build things with, it's what should we do and what shouldn't we do that we need to determine.

We've got Remedy completely tailored for us, and now we have to upgrade but can't. So we need to figure out what we can and can't do so we don't run into the same upgrade problems with ServiceNow. We are working with Fruition Partners and they're doing all of our implementation. We're looking to them to help us with some of that.

We haven't used it in production yet so I can't really answer.

We're on Remedy now, and we implemented a previous version of it about 10 years ago. We made tons of changes and customizations to it. When it came time to do the upgrade we couldn't.

We're working with Fruition Partners to implement it.

If you have an existing Remedy installation I'd say, "Run, run away from it. Run to ServiceNow." To me that's a no-brainer. If you have nothing I would ask to get a demo to understand what ServiceNow will do for you. You need to really get into the whole ITLL realm and get some training. The thing would be is to realize what it can do for your company. What we've really done is realized what going in that direction can actually do for our company. Therefore, this is a far superior tool to implement that.

Again, it's a tool, it's not going to help you if you don't have that great understanding of processes. The first step would be is get some kind of a basic demo. Understand ITIL and really look at it and see how can help you guys.

The most valuable features at this point in time for me is the ability for tracking changes, for tying changes in the problem tickets together, tying incidents together to the problem tickets. The interaction between our user to IT aspect, from top to bottom, has been fantastic. Whereas users submits a problem because they have a problem, then we've got to find out if it's a bigger problem, or if it's bug, or SDLC, all this stuff. For me in my role at this point in time, which is changing, it's just tracking everything from bottom to top. We're making sure that stuff is getting done and then communicating back to teams, and it's a full loop.

ServiceNow was implemented over seven years ago. When I came on it was already implemented and I didn't have much of a role in getting ServiceNow changed, add-ins, whatever. They weren't reaching out to other companies. I was basically brought in to do monitoring buildouts, and get our very baseline infrastructure more organized.

I actually don't know. To be perfectly honest, I feel that just about any tool, as long as they have the same offerings, can be modified to fit the company that is attempting to use it. Take a look at an ERP solution. ERP has been around for a lot longer, to a certain degree than say ServiceNow and there is a massive amount of offerings. You can go with SAP. You can go with Oracle. I can't even remember the other guys' names. No matter what, you can always make them work for your company.

They may not have been the best choice for you, maybe there are pluses and minuses. Once you actually get into the application, you start figuring it out at that point it's like, "Well, it would have been better if we went with this, if we focus more on this." The thing is once you get an offering, you still have the ability to go in and configure it to your heart's desire. ServiceNow, it's the full suite of offerings. You have a lot more to sit in and actually go in and configure, as opposed to it's just another ITIL based application that I can sit in and configure.

I know there are places that they can do better at. While I'm not an administrator, I'm not sitting there configuring it, I know our person who does configure it does have his foibles. There are certain things that are difficult to get out of ServiceNow, which is why I suggested going to partner companies that are using ServiceNow already in your similar environment. You go to ServiceNow and say, "Hey. This is what we want to do. How can we accomplish this?" ServiceNow says, "You can do it any way you want."

It's like, "That's not an answer." It's like, "What should we do? We need guidance." Well, "No. you can do anything with it." Okay. That doesn't quite help me as a user, and future administrator, or as an executive. I'm sure it sounds great for an executive, but when it comes down to it, when it starts growing in your own environment, executives starts asking questions, "Why hasn't it been doing this?" It's like, "We don't know how to get that matured within our own environment." It really comes down to I think they can improve upon. They are doing that here with the networking, but for as themselves, have their own best practices to a certain degree.

To a degree, yes it's stable, but mostly it's due to data center issues on their side, or it's come down to network issues on our side. Since it's external, it's not internal, you're looking at having to deal with Internet weather, or data center hosted environments, or our instance had the issues, which is pretty rare.

It's been a long time. It's been a very long time. I think mostly they had a roll back of, not a build or an update. It was some type of data change, but I don't recall the details as it was several years ago.

I wouldn't know because I don't actually handle any of that aspect. Again, I'm still pretty new to actually having my hand in helping with ServiceNow. I don't have any of the hands-on experience. I'm more of a user at this point than an administrator of certain degrees.

I've used many other types of applications such as HEAT, or Remedy, any of those guys and a couple others that I can't remember the name of. They're all customizable to a point. Obviously, not many of those previous ones actually had a full ITIL buildout, or full offering as ServiceNow does. From my point of view and my aspect, I'm more concerned about user experience, and more concerned about backend experience as an IT professional coming in and trying to fix issues, and track said issues. ServiceNow has a much bigger offering in the sense that you've got new changes. You've got your problem ticket findings. You've got tracking for CIs, and the CMDB database, and sitting on the backend trying to provide all that data for those tickets, and whatnot, throughout the company. It makes it a lot easier. It's definitely a one-stop shop for being able to actually come in and help your users, but also help your full infrastructure, your backend.

From what I've heard, and all I can go off of is hearsay, it was pretty easy comparatively. I don't know what they were using before for any ticket tracking system, but that's initially what they jumped into was ticket tracking. We needed something to be able to support our IT infrastructure and our service desk. They also wanted to be able to track changes, and do that. It was just like, "Okay, we'll start with this, and start growing more and more." It turned into quite a bit more. We have definitely stepped up using a lot more of the offerings that ServiceNow has, mostly because we have to, to some degree, to be able to make things a lot more efficient. It's worked for us from what I can tell.

You want to sit there and plan. You probably don't want to turn everything on right from the get go either, because then you're just going to overload yourself. The same goes with any type of a larger offering that has hooks into other aspects of your infrastructure. If you turn everything on, you're just going to get overwhelmed, and not actually have proper resources to be able to handle those. It's always start turning things on, start figuring out what the workflow is, and go from there.

Make sure you flesh out what you're doing. Honestly, I see all the pitfalls are the ones where you'll have a misunderstanding, or make a bad choice in configuration. If you believe that the offering is going to work for you, then you need to make sure you reach out to people who are going through similar situations, or rather it's three years in advance in your same situation. Find another partner company that has already gone through the preliminary, but not too far in the future because then you just look and say, "Wow. They completed so much. How are we ever going to get there?" A year or two, maybe three, and talk with them, figure out what their pitfalls were, a similar type company hopefully.