Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 64 of 69, unchanged
ServiceNow · 1 category · RankedServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management
32Judge labels
1First choices
11Negative labels
12 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.8, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
2% in TPRM for enterprise buyers
Rank 72 of 87 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 42% of its 12 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business65 of 71
0%3 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market72 of 87
0%12 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise10 of 72
2%17 labels
accepted challenger
In tprm · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading
Standing by category
Every category where a model named ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Third-party risk management | Security operations | 0% | 72 of 87 | 42% | 12 | criticized challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · TPRM · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 70 → 79 of 82
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 10 → 11 of 68
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPRM | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 70 → 72 of 87 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
By framing
Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.
FramingLabels by classFirst choices
Direct7 labelsNone
Paraphrase5 labels1
Comparative13 labels4not counted in share
Budget-constrained3 labelsNone
Scale-constrained2 labelsNone
Negative2 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative32 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 5 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Recognized as a Leader in the Forrester Wave TPRM Q1 2024, it excels in workflow capabilities and strategic vision.” Mistral Small · TPRM · comparative prompt · first choice
“Organizations already running ServiceNow for IT/service management” Qwen 3.7 Flash · TPRM · comparative prompt · alternative
“Organizations already using ServiceNow for IT, workflows, or GRC” GPT-6 Luna · TPRM · comparative prompt · alternative
“Strong workflow orchestration and enterprise scalability” GLM 4.7 FlashX · TPRM · comparative prompt · alternative
And against it
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.
“Avoid these unless you are a Fortune 500 company ... ServiceNow's risk modules require massive upfront implementation costs” Gemini 3.5 Flash · TPRM · negative prompt · hard negative
“You should avoid heavy legacy GRC platforms (like Archer or ServiceNow), which are too expensive, complex” Gemini 3.5 Flash · TPRM · paraphrase prompt · hard negative
“cannot afford the massive deployment timelines, high costs, and complexity of legacy GRC platforms (like ServiceNow, ProcessUnity, or Archer)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · TPRM · direct prompt · soft negative
“without paying the heavy license fees of enterprise giants like ServiceNow or RSA Archer” Qwen 3.7 Flash · TPRM · direct prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management, over the 32 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management, over the 32 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.
What carried it into the answer
The sites and pages cited by the answers that named ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 29 of the 32 answers that named ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
upguard.com18
bitsight.com16
vanta.com14
learn.g2.com12
riskpublishing.com10
gartner.com9
mitratech.com9
processunity.com9
riskledger.com9
servicenow.comYour site9
106 of the 115 domain citations in answers naming ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 50 a month (“servicenow third-party risk management”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 2 a month
- Its own site
- It sits on ServiceNow's site (servicenow.com), so there are no site figures for it alone
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 72 of 87 in TPRM
Segment leader
55%
UpGuard
- First choices
- 1 across its categories
- Named in
- 32 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 29 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
Names read as ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management; a claim can dispute any of them.
ServiceNow 8
Follow ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
ServiceNow is the company behind ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management.ShowHide
The company
ServiceNow is the company behind ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management.
ShowHideOn record
Company recordsIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management helps organizations continuously monitor critical vendors so businesses can evaluate, mitigate, and remediate risks.
- For
- organizations
- Not stated on the pages read
- Price, starting price, free plan or trial, integrations, certifications, hosting, customers
What ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: servicenow.com/products/third-party-risk-management.html. A claimed page can correct any of them.
Is this your product?
Claim this page
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 Third-Party 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 Third-Party Risk Management, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name ServiceNow Third-Party Risk Management, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.