We compared Pega BPM and ServiceNow based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, ServiceNow seems to be the superior solution. The main difference between these products comes from the tools that ServiceNow users can employ to create whatever they deem necessary. Pega BPM’s features are not as powerful in this regard.
"The best part of Pega, for me, is that they let you reuse a lot of the aspects in the product."
"Application development is very rapid. A lot of code gets reused while building the applications, which is something we highly appreciate."
"In general, we use web services to integrate this solution with our other tools. It is the main approach we use with this solution and it integrates with all tools that we need. If you want to integrate with other solutions such ThreatFire or similar, it is possible as well."
"Case Management, as well as Workflow Automation, are Pega's most powerful capabilities."
"The case management is great."
"The most valuable features of the solution are case management, routing, and low-code environment."
"The most valuable feature of Pega BPM is step-by-step voice guidance that converts your problem statement into different diagrams and then implements the process."
"The user interface and the ease of developing the workflow for an application are valuable features."
"The biggest feature is that it is cloud-based, so it's always updated, it's always current. We don't have to worry about patches, revisions. We're always working with the latest version."
"HR Case Management and Customer Service Management are two of the key areas which clients are using."
"Very good incident management, chain management and problem management features."
"I like that it's always up and running."
"I prefer ServiceNow to the competition because of its ease of use, installation and configuration."
"It's easy to integrate. For instance, yesterday we closed the integration with SAP for the IP business management module to manage the forecast of projects. We created an interface between ServiceNow and SAP to control projects for accounting and on the forecast of the project. It was really easy. We don't have any problems with ServiceNow at the moment. As a company, they are improving constantly."
"Your time-to-market, or TTM, becomes faster when you use ServiceNow. Even individuals that are not tech savvy can quickly change processes and workflows in it. This can make the organization as a whole more agile."
"The Workflow feature is the most valuable."
"Business specific functionality is needed."
"I believe that Pega's strategy when it comes to the UX part is not that great currently as compared to the other emerging BPM tools in the market."
"The cost of licensing could be improved."
"Compared to other BPM products, the interface is somewhat complex, so the usability could be improved."
"UI needs improvement."
"The training aspect of Pega BPM requires significant enhancement. There should be more opportunities for third-party training and engaging events, such as hackathons where individuals can share their expertise. Additionally, the training structure itself should be more organized, as I have received feedback from my colleagues in the COE that the current training approach is overwhelming and requires excessive referencing to obtain accurate information. Another area for improvement would be the user experience with regard to RPA. Simplifying the IDA for citizen developers would make it easier for them to adopt the RPA tool."
"This is an expensive solution."
"The local development approach is good in Pega, however, cost-wise, it's getting expensive. That needs to be addressed."
"When it comes to reference fields, there are some limitations where you aren't able to use them, like in relationship queries. In Remedy, when you click a menu, you get options directly, whereas here, if you use a reference field, it points you to a different form. So the UI experience totally changes for the end user."
"An area for improvement would be the accessibility of downloaded and compressed files."
"The capital expenditure neeed to get the tool up and running is extensive."
"Transparency in the pricing model needs to be improved."
"The visuals are the one area where there is opportunity for improvement."
"Before implementing this solution, you should have the ITSM model in place for chain management requests. That is a prerequisite because you cannot perform tasks without it."
"The solution could improve by being more stable."
"I would like the reporting aspect to be better, including the graphs. It could have some way for us to easily to export to a csv or spreadsheet so that if a graph cannot be provided by ServiceNow itself, we would be able to use other applications to create them. Also, if there was a feature that enabled us to interact with end users directly from ServiceNow, like an instant-messaging type of feature, that would be great."
Pega BPM is ranked 7th in Rapid Application Development Software with 57 reviews while ServiceNow is ranked 4th in Rapid Application Development Software with 212 reviews. Pega BPM is rated 8.2, while ServiceNow is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Pega BPM writes "Provides built-in frameworks that can be reused and reduces time and cost". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ServiceNow writes "A stable and scalable solution that has excellent features and is useful for collecting data and building KPIs". Pega BPM is most compared with Camunda, Appian, Microsoft Power Apps, IBM BPM and OutSystems, whereas ServiceNow is most compared with BMC Helix ITSM, Microsoft Power Apps, IBM Maximo, Appian and Microsoft Dynamics CRM. See our Pega BPM vs. ServiceNow report.
See our list of best Rapid Application Development Software vendors.
We monitor all Rapid Application Development Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.