ServiceNow Reviews

Microsoft Teams integration is available. Notifications are present within the virtual agent chatbot, integrated with third-party tools. All the portal features have been enabled, including the virtual agent installation.

There is a concern about the integration point of view, particularly the virtual agent. Currently, we are working on integration with Teams and the virtual agent. Now, the chatbot and portal are available. A pop-up message shows the redactions button if you click on anything in the chatbot conversations. This redirects to the portal. It should open, and the virtual agent should be integrated that way.

I have been using ServiceNow as a partner for two years.

There are some bugs in the solution.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is slow in performance level.

Technical support is good.

The initial setup is simple. It takes only eight hours for each resource because of integration and conversation flow.

From a developer's perspective, understanding the pricing of ServiceNow is crucial. Currently, pricing details are mainly available for account-related matters. However, if developers also have access to this information, it would greatly benefit them.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I mostly use it for change management.

Change management is most valuable.

The interface can be a bit more intuitive.

It has been in the company for quite a while. It's not new at all. 

I've been using it on and off for about eight or nine years. I work with this solution on almost a daily basis at this point, at least three times a week.

I find it to be very stable.

I'm not in a good position to give a judgment on its scalability, but in terms of its usage, because it is a ticketing system, it is used for all the incidents. Our service desk uses it primarily to issue tickets, requests, changes, and so on. There are about 15 people who use it very regularly for those types of purposes. It is being used extensively.

I never had to get in touch with their technical support.

I wasn't here when it came online.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

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. 

We use this solution mostly for ITSM, but we also have customers who use it for customer service management and item discovery.

The features I found most valuable in this solution are usually also found on other platforms like the Visual Task Boards.

For change management, I find the CAB workbench very useful. I haven't seen any other solution that has a CAB workbench or advanced automated solutions for a change advisory board. That's one of the perks of ServiceNow. Other perks include the Visual Task Boards and the Virtual Agent. ServiceNow also has the Workflow Engine which works very well and is very intuitive. Some of the development tools give you a lot of freedom in terms of changing processes. That's what we like.

This solution needs to be improved for global use. Currently, it's very oriented to the processes and needs of the US customer base, like their compliance solution or GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance), and not so much for customers from other parts of the world. Some users may like the things that ServiceNow is improving, but those are very oriented to users based in the United States and Europe.

In Latin America which is the geographical region we work in, it's not very useful. Some of the customers are more interested in other solutions. Sometimes they put aside ServiceNow because it is focused on the needs of the customer base in Europe and the US. This is one of the disadvantages I see.

Another disadvantage is the level of maturity that the customer has to have to get value from a solution like ServiceNow. The customer needs to have a great level of maturity. A company that is starting its journey with ITSM wouldn't find ServiceNow very useful, because sometimes there's a considerable amount of code you need to know to be able to implement ServiceNow. This will depend on the complex needs that a customer may have, for the customer to find ServiceNow as a useful solution. Depending on the level of maturity they have, they would need that amount of customization. I don't see the need for coding as a problem. The problem I see is that the level of maturity that the customer needs to have is high.

There's quite a lot of features in ServiceNow. Currently, we haven't had any sort of need that ServiceNow and the features that they already have, don't resolve. There's no feature that I can think of right now that I'd like to be added in the next release.

There are some guidelines that ServiceNow has that automate the implementation, but they're available only for ITSM and ITOM. It would be good if those automated guidelines are also made available for other ServiceNow solutions like customer service management, configuration management, and asset management.

Another area for improvement is the lack of clarity in terms of how this solution is licensed. It is usually very complicated for customers to know how they are being charged for the licenses that they consume. In most of the ServiceNow solutions, this problem is persistent.

There might be some bias because we are ServiceNow partners and we're also Freshworks partners. We're not users. We're partners. We implement both solutions for customers.

We used cloud-based deployment.

We've been working with ServiceNow for quite some time.

I evaluated BMC.

Some of the customers are interested in Acquire when they think of ServiceNow.

My advice to others looking into implementing ServiceNow is for them to really know what the objective of the implementation is: what they're trying to fix and what problem they're trying to solve. They have to be very conscious of these things because if they are not, the solution may not be a good fit. It's going to be too big of a problem to solve. They need to have a high level of maturity to get everything they need from a platform like ServiceNow.

I'm rating this solution a nine out of ten.

I am a customer of ServiceNow. We use the solution for operations and ITSM.

ServiceNow has a user interface that mimics a web-base and is easy on the eyes however, it is too fluid. Currently, we are unable to audit notes. ServiceNow should be more organized and structured so it enables us to classify notes. 

I have been using ServiceNow for two years.

The solution has good stability.

ServiceNow is scalable.

Due to some of the complexities within our organization, the initial deployment was complex. The tool itself is straightforward.

The deployment of ServiceNow was completed in-house.

We compared ServiceNow with Remedy. 

I recommend ServiceNow to commercial or private companies. I would rate this product a 10 out of 10.

I use it for incident management. For the part of the business I'm in, it is used for end-user incident management. There are other parts of the business where it is also used for customer data collection or customer engagement data collection.

Remote access is most valuable.

It needs a more intuitive interface for identifying issues. A bit more natural language processing or something like that would be helpful in understanding my queries.

There should be greater integration with other enterprise applications. We're using Microsoft, Oracle, and other applications, and it would be good to have a greater integration on some of the immediate hiccups that you have with these services. It doesn't mean that when we have a problem with using another application, ServiceNow should be able to fix it, but ServiceNow should be able to alert us to things. There should be a bit more automation or integration.

I have been using this solution for at least five years.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

We had minimal tech support.

I am using it in a managed IT environment. As far as I know, it was satisfactory, but our department manager would know more.

I would recommend this solution because I make good use of it. I would rate it an eight out of 10.

My primary use case of this solution is for tickets.

ServiceNow has helped us a lot because it helps us track our tickets, and rather than having to take notes of changes and updates, we can access all the information with a TP number.

An area for improvement would be the accessibility of downloaded and compressed files.

There are no issues with stability that I know of.

I found the initial setup to be straightforward, and it should be relatively easy for anyone to navigate it with a little help.

ServiceNow is close to perfect, it delivers exactly what is needed in terms of keeping track of information in our records. I would give it a score of eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for IT Operational Management.

Everything about the schema, including the design of ServiceNow, is great. 

It's scalable. That's what attracts me most. 

You can configure it to fit your client's requirements. You can extend your functionalities, and then the workflow.

The stability is very good.

It's moving at a very fast pace. It is difficult for developers or engineers to keep up with it. That's the only issue. 

For the customer it's expensive. 

I've been using the solution for seven years or so. It's been a while. 

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

The solution is scalable. It's easy to expand if you need to. You can use it no matter the size of your organization - from small to large. 

We haven't had any issues with technical support. We are satisfied with the level of service on offer. 

The initial setup is excellent. There are no issues dealing with the implementation.

It's very expensive, and if care is not taken, competitions can quickly come and take over the space by offering better pricing.

We use both cloud and on-premises deployments. 

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. They're doing what you need to do. They provide a roadmap, which is good.