ServiceNow Reviews

I worked on the CMDB configuration management setup, and then previously I worked on software asset management also and hardware asset management also. I did a little bit on the ITSM side also.

The incident management is great.

We have found change management and CMDB to be very useful. 

The knowledge management is quite good.

The AAR might require further improvements.

There are areas such as technology management that have scope for further improvement. 

Their cloud management is also not that great compared to other products.

There could be some additional capability for discovery. As it matures, it needs to showcase to users what is possible within the solution.  

I have been using it for the last seven years or so, on and off, and especially in the last three, four years, more on a more regular basis. I'm using it almost daily at my job.

The solution is stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

Sometimes the CMDB, BK table gets slow, however, almost all of the other things are good, at least.

The scalability of the product is very good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

Technical support has mostly been good. We have no complaints in terms of the level of service.

Whether the initial setup is difficult or complex depends on the implementation. We have done multiple implementations, however, it depends on the product's implementation on the consumer end. It can vary from straightforward to complex.

The deployment also is product-specific, customer-specific, et cetera. It depends, for example, on the number of customers, the particular, specific scope, and which product is required, and how many users and devices that they have. All these things come into play and change how long it would take to set everything up.

The size of the team a company might need for deployment and maintenance is product and scope-specific, however, it can vary from one or two people to even maybe five to ten people, depending on which products are in scope, and what is the scope of maintenance requirements.

If the project is for the ITSM, it'll be 18 or 19 managers playing a role, and the rest being the configuration managers with other things. However, it depends on the project.

We're an implementor. We handle the setup for clients. 

I'm a consultant. We are a managed service provider. As part of the implementation, the client usually does look for a cloud for it.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I deducted a mark as sometimes there is a certain level of slowness, however, for the most part, we have been happy with its capabilities. 

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 primarily use the solution for change management and program management. Let's say, for example, if someone across our state needs a license. My team will send the request to me and I would approve it. For other tasks, they might send me a ticket and I would either approve it or add additional comments, however, that's it. 

The workflow and the general effectiveness of the processes have helped improve how our organization functions.

The workflow makes things extremely efficient and it improves effectiveness.

The product integrates well with other solutions. 

The stability has been very good so far.

We have found that the product can scale. 

Technical support has been helpful.

One of the areas that need improvement is when the product was implemented, they did not do a very good job of explaining all these features and functions, and capabilities of the tool. That could have been an implementation issue on our organization's side. This could have happened by not including end-users in order to get their input or to understand what this tool offers. It was kind of just pushed out. For example, while the tool could potentially do a hundred things, only 20 of the capabilities were explained. The other 80 we have to figure out on our own. It could have been explained and rolled out better, however, that could have been just an implementation issue on our side as well.

It became kind of complex to set it up without a general lack of knowledge of the particular feature-function capabilities. Features and capabilities could have been explained better to the end-users.

I have used the solution for about a year.

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The product definitely can be scaled. We're working now to integrate it with other workflow products, so it's definitely scalable.

We've dealt with technical support in the past. We have a service desk. Since it's on-prem, it's been pretty good. Tech support has been helpful and we have no complaints. 

We did previously use a different solution, however, with ServiceNow, we find that it offers better scalability, ease of use, features, and functions.

My team did not implement ServiceNow, we do not maintain it and we do not service it. We just use the product.

I don't know what they had on the setup and the implementation part in terms of setting up servers and configuring servers and things like that. I don't know what that entails. We just know when we got it, we got a product. So what difficulties they might've had setting in up with, I don't know. I can't speak to that.

I don't handle any aspect of the payments or licensing process. I can't speak to it from personal experience. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I go in and approve service tickets, however, I am not a hardcore user of that platform. My team sends me a request, I open it up and I review the ticket and I approve it, and then it moves on. I don't follow the workflow or anything like that.

Our team uses the most recent version of the solution.

I would advise potential new users to make sure that in that user community, end-users are involved in the implementation from beginning to end and make sure that the end-users fully understand the features and capabilities of the tool before it is implemented across an organization. Their involvement is key to a successful implementation and very important.

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

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.

We primarily use the solution for tickets and we use it for order processing.

We use the product for incident management, asset management, and service management. Those are the three big use cases. It's mostly asset management.

We use a ton of the features.

The best feature for me, personally, is Discovery. That one is super useful for us. Discovery is super advantageous. That has brought us a long way forward. That is a big deal for us. It's gotten us away from the manual of walking the floor to trying to find the assets.

The other one that is really big for us is Automatic Workflows. That is a big deal and certainly helps with the streamlining of the process and the interconnectivity with incident management.

The solution is very stable.

The company went out of their way to help us and even helped us save about six months of deployment time.

If you stick to the out-of-the-box solution, it's an easy setup.

You can scale the solution quite well.

Technical support is very helpful and very responsive.

The licensing needs to be divided into tiers in order to attract lower-level users.

Right now, the licensing is kind of an all or nothing and so what happens is, is that either somebody has full access or they don't have any access due to the way the licensing works. There is this kind of view for ITIL purposes access that we kind of need, and we don't have access to it. If you think of RACI, it's informed access. You would need a full license to be able to do it. And we just don't. It really caused us a level of visibility loss. 

Basically, what the licensing offers now is just for doers. There's no viewer role. It really needs a viewer role or an approver role level of licensing without a doer role license having to be issued.

If you move away from the out-of-the-box configurations, the initial implementation can get complex and take a while.

I've been using the solution for about two years at this point.

I love the stability. We were lucky enough to be physically located very close to Service Now. When we were hitting problems with our internal organization to roadblocks, we literally drove up to Service Now headquarters and sat down with them for an eight-hour session to revamp our whole internal process. I was pretty sure that if we would have continued down our own process, we would have taken another six months. However, with Service Now's assistance, we fixed it in one day just by having access directly to Service Now. That was an amazing process. They enabled us to jump forward six months and made things super stable.

We're a huge company. Scalability is definitely possible. We're scaling to over 100,000 users. We have asset management users, incident managements, software deployment, hardware deployments, break fixes, asset monitoring, et cetera, all on this solution. 

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

If a company needs to scale, it can do so, no problem.

Technical support has been great. They are extremely helpful and responsive. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we receive as an organization.

We did previously use different solutions. Everything was fragmented. We were able to combine multiple systems. We tied multiple systems to combine them into one ServiceNow offering. We wanted to consolidate 50 or more systems into a single system and Service Now is one of the two options we looked at that was able to do that.

The deployment process is basically about requiring, gathering, and then developing or customizing the product itself for the workflows and then deploying it out into the field. It's really pretty simple, as long as you stick to a lot of the out-of-box functionality. 

When you start to get away from the out-of-box functionality, you can really link in the deployment process. Anything that you go out past that out-of-box functionality, you can really hurt yourself. Basically, it has the capability of getting very complicated. However, if you stick to out-of-the-box, it's simple. We personally found that out the hard way.

For us, the deployment process took two years. 

We recruited some outside help to assist us in the implementation. We found that having experts on hand was extremely beneficial.

I'd recommend outside help. There are definitely some nuances within the deployment that having some experts within Service Now is very helpful - especially when you're first time to have some outside thinking. 

Our organization has noticed an ROI. They're happy with it.

The licensing needs to offer a variety of levels to meet what an organization actually needs. Right now, it's all or nothing, and that can get costly.

We also evaluated SAP against ServiceNow. We ended up choosing ServiceNow in the end, however, I can't recall what the deciding factor or factors were.

I'm a customer and end-user. 

We are using the FAAS version of the solution currently.

I would advised those companies considering the solution to take advantage of what the programs do rather rather than try to lift and shift.

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

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.