ServiceNow Reviews

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. 

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.

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 primarily use the solution in a variety of ways, including the NOW platform (CMDB, Workflows, Service Portal, Service Catalog, Reporting), Custom AppDev, SecOps (Vulnerability Response with Tenable integration and Security Incident Response), Governance Risk and Compliance (GRC), IT Service Management (ITSM), IT Asset Management (ITAM), IT Operations Management (Service Mapping, Discovery, Event Management), IT Business Management (including Project Portfolio Management (PPM)), HR Service Delivery (HRSD), Software Asset Management (SAM), and Facilities Service Management (FSM).

We can now transform operations from excel spreadsheets and emails to a central system of record/truth. ServiceNow can either replace or integrate with a prospect/customer's existing solutions - especially if such integrations are common.

ServiceNow ensures a customer's investment by having 2 releases per year.  Prospect/customers considering implementing or expanding its ServiceNow investment should enlist the help of ServiceNow partners to support their effort throughout their journey.

ServiceNow is an industry leader in multiple areas and provides an excellent ROI. 

The platform (PaaS) is a low-code/no-code platform on a secure Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS - Government Cloud Computing environment (GCC)), with a single data model and a single system of record. Its applications (SaaS) can easily be extended with workflows and other built-in APIs together with the ServiceNow Integration Hub and other applications available on the ServiceNow Store. The platform is very flexible and built to be integrated.  

ServiceNow is an industry leader in multiple areas and provides an excellent ROI.

I have no further information to add to this, however, there is much more information offered by Forester, Gartner, and ServiceNow to augment this input.  

We are a ServiceNow partner, as well as Salesforce and other cloud-based IaaS, SaaS, and PaaS transformative solutions, and have been for over 10 years. Often, we are engaged with our customers for years, helping to build roadmaps that allow them to expand their solutions over time because resources are limited and organizational change management takes time.

Like all other IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS subscription cloud providers, ServiceNow is constantly improving by building new capabilities to expand the breadth and depth of its offerings while increasing its activities with partners to build more capabilities. As ServiceNow and its partners/customers expand the capabilities, I see new vertical applications being created (currently underway for TELCO and other industries). Stay tuned for more updates that not only provide new capabilities but also enhance existing ones.

I've been implementing ServiceNow for over 5 years for various clients.

The solution has excellent stability and we're working with a client that has one of the largest implementations of ITSM and SecOps in the world.

The solution offers excellent scalability. For example, currently, we are working with a client that has one of the largest implementations of ITSM and SecOps in the world.

The product offers excellent support.

Yes, the process is straightforward, but using an experienced services firm is best - especially if implementing the product for the first time.

CoreSphere, LLC - CSAT scores are published on the ServiceNow partner page. Other are reviews completed in the US Federal government's Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARs).

The ROI a company can get depends on the customer and the investment.

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 are premium partners with ServiceNow and I'm a solutions architect. 

ServiceNow is one of the fastest‑growing cloud enterprise software companies in the world. We implemented ITSM, ITOM and ITBM for various customs and even in our organization which reduced operations costs infrastructure cost

This solution has a user friendly environment. ServiceNow offers a wide platform which allows us to explore other technologies and functionalities and provides a 360-degree view. Data in reports and dashboards are easily accessible. I also like the integration hub which is plug and play. You can integrate any tool with ServiceNow.

Need to focus on small business like Licensing, packaging

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

We don't have any complaints from our customers after they start using the product. Once they adapt to the new look and feel, and the user experience, there's no problem. 

We generally don't need much support. When it's necessary, I can contact the higher support team that deal with implementation and it's easy to connect with them and get a quick response. They are good. 

We used Remedy and we switched because Remedy is still using old technology

The initial setup is straightforward in ServiceNow. It's not complex, you can say it's out-of-the-box.

100%

If a company is looking for more accessibility, a user friendly environment where they want to explore other functionalities like HR and CSM, then ServiceNow provides that. I recommend this solution because they're always coming out with new technologies and functionalities. And the support level is very good even though things are automatically updated on a regular basis. 

I rate this solution a ten out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution just for our ticketing purposes to keep track of our incidents, projects, and tasks.

We use it for internal projects, circuit routers, upgrades, keeping track of vendor contracts, et cetera. Basically, it's just a repository of everything that we do and to support our internal clients that deal with maintaining bookkeeping as well as providing the tickets, keeping track of projects, and stuff like that.

It's great for keeping everyone informed in the company - not just IT. Everyone becomes aware of change requests and incidents so the entire company is on the same page.

It's great that everybody is in the loop - especially from an incident perspective for a user. If I'm waiting for somebody to get back to me, or if I'm researching something, I could update the notes and I don't have to call the user. The user will get that ticket via email. They're aware. You don't have to go and chase people and update them individually, or even on a group basis. Whatever I enter into my notes is sent out to everyone. There's no gap in information sharing.

The general incident management is very good. On a day-to-day basis, we get incidents and we need to keep records. The incident tickets are being used a lot.

The change management within ServiceNow is great. It's great due to the fact that it keeps track, of everything. Any change requests that touch a particular business or function can be used and distributed amongst whoever's involved in that project. Everyone is informed of what changes are needed or done. I don't need to go and individually create a separate distribution list. It's simple.

The solution offers very good functionality and transparency.

From my perspective, when I create any incidents or even a change request or any projects that I'm dealing with, I could upload as many documents as I want, unless people take the software and they basically structure it to the way they want it. 

It's easy to use. If somebody is in an IT business or even has a basic knowledge of any ticketing system, they could learn it very quickly.

The solution is very stable.

The product scales well.

There aren't any improvements that I could suggest off top of my head, as it's a well-informed well-structured solution. From a business perspective or an individual, IT perspective, there isn't much to change at all. 

Some companies may find that adding as many documents as they like to an incident makes the solution problematic. 

Once a change request has been created once it's been approved and been submitted, there is no way to go in on that particular change request and submit an additional task. You would have to revert the change, then submit an additional task for a group to act on. I'd like it if we had the ability to, once the task had been approved and created, go in and create an additional task for a particular group to action. That's definitely one thing I would want to make a change to.

I've used the solution for a very long time. With my current company, I've used it for five years. However, I also used it at my previous company for around 20 years. It's been a few decades at this point.

The stability is very good. We haven't had any problems. It hasn't gone down and it hasn't crashed. There are no bugs or anything like that. I don't see it any now and I haven't in the past - even after 20 or more years. This is flawless software. 

It's scalable. You could easily modify it and you could create reports or you could do whatever you want to do with it based on the privileges. There's no downside to it. You could create your individual report or you could use a template and create your own individual report and you can use search criteria for your own searches for incidents, change, tasks, anything. It's very flexible.

We have about 100 users on the solution right now.

We may increase usage in the future. Right now, it's being used quite extensively.

I can't speak to how technical support is in terms of helpfulness. We'll go to our backend developers and they basically deal or interact with them. I haven't had any interaction with the ServiceNow technicians or anybody else from ServiceNow.

I've been in the industry for almost 20 or 25 years. With the previous ticketing system that I used to use, which was Remedy, there's a big difference. ServiceNow is just so much easier.

I didn't handle the initial setup.

That's a different group that does altogether. It's a packaging portion. We basically tell them if there are certain things or floor processes that we need to create. We'll create it on a front end, we'll create the diagram, the workflow, and everything else. We give it to the backend office and they'll basically make the changes as they go. They'll give us a test case scenario before it goes live, and any modification or any changes that are required. We reply back to them with the information and they basically make the changes according to what we want. From a packaging or modification perspective, it's not something that my team or I do. 

I'm not sure how many users are currently maintaining the product.

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

We are using the most recent version of the solution at this time.

The product is well-versed, and it's simple to use - which is why I would recommend it. You've just got to know how you're going to organize or structure everything. Whoever's basically managing or deploying the software needs to map it out. They should be able to modify or scale it to the way they want it, however. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities. The flexibility and the ability to modify what you want are great - and, on top of that, it's pretty simple. If you know how to do a simple query, you should be able to pull up anything that you want. That's what I like about this software