| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRC platforms | Security operations | 0% | 77 of 77 | 60% | 35 | criticized challenger |
| Compliance automation | Security operations | 0% | 32 of 54 | 33% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by Drata at 37% |
| Third-party risk management | Security operations | 0% | 71 of 72 | 100% | 3 | under 10 labels · led by UpGuard at 53% |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 8 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 5 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“If you want workflow automation across the enterprise, start with ServiceNow.” GPT-5.4 mini · GRC · comparative prompt · first choice
“For enterprises, Mitratech Alyne or ServiceNow GRC offer the most customization and integration options.” Mistral Small · Compliance automation · comparative prompt · alternative
“ServiceNow specifically wins out if an enterprise already runs their entire operations on ServiceNow” Qwen 3.7 Flash · GRC · comparative prompt · alternative
“Seamless integration with ServiceNow platform | Organizations already using ServiceNow” GLM 4.7 FlashX · GRC · direct prompt · alternative
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“older or heavily customized configurations of ServiceNow GRC ... Verdict: Avoid these unless you are a massive, highly regulated global enterprise” Gemini 3.5 Flash · TPRM · negative prompt · hard negative
“enterprise suites like ServiceNow, OneTrust, or MetricStream (which often cost six figures and require months of setup) are out of the question” Gemini 3.5 Flash · GRC · budget prompt · hard negative
“ServiceNow GRC (IRM) — *Highest Caution*ceived more complaints about ServiceNow for GRC than any other solution” Kimi K2 · GRC · negative prompt · hard negative
“skip full enterprise platforms (ServiceNow GRC, MetricStream, Archer)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · GRC · direct prompt · hard negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 112 of the 148 answers that named ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management and are not a share of its labels.
360 of the 360 domain citations in answers naming ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at servicenow.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.
Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.