ServiceNow Security Operations
Last updated: Oct 13, 2026
How does Fluid Attacks' solution compare to ServiceNow Security Operations's?
The following comparison table enables you to discern the performance of both providers across various attributes essential for meeting your company's cybersecurity needs. To better understand each attribute, read their descriptions in the dedicated page.
This comparison focuses on the product itself, although some attributes in this comparison draw information from the larger parent company it belongs to ServiceNow.
Organization
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | ServiceNow Security Operations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | Native ASPM with in-house scanners | AI-powered PTaaS on top of native ASPM with in-house scanners | Vulnerability management |
| Extras | None | None | Security incident response (SIR) and threat intelligence |
| Headcount | 186 | Same | 33,146 |
| Headcount distribution | Engineering 42%, IT 12%, sales 16%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 24% | Same | Engineering 28%, IT 13%, sales 12%, marketing 2%, operations 4% and others 41% |
| Headcount growth | +3%, +21%, +29% | Same | +1%, +8%, +21% |
| Headquarters | CO and US | Same | US |
| Countries | AR, BO, BR, CL, CO, CR, DO, EC, MX, PA, PE and US | Same | IN and US |
| Reputation | 9.27 from 388 reviews over 7 years on Clutch, G2 and Gartner | Same | 8.15 from 145 reviews over 9 years on G2, Gartner, PeerSpot and TrustRadius |
| Followers | 23K based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube | Same | 2M based on the following: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X and YouTube |
| Research firms | None | None | 451 Research, Everest Group, Forrester, Gartner, IDC, Info-Tech, Nucleus Research and Omdia |
| Founded | 2001 | Same | 2004 |
| Funding | Bootstrapped | Same | 4.1B USD in 8 rounds from 4 investors |
| Acquisitions | None | None | Acquired 0 times and made 44 acquisitions |
| Revenue | 10M to 15M | Same | 10B to 15B |
| Third-Party CVEs Discovered | 289 CVEs reported to MITRE, ranked in the top 10 CVE labs worldwide | Same | None |
| Compliance | GDPR, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, ISO/IEC 27017:2015, ISO/IEC 27018:2019, ISO/IEC 27701:2019, PCI DSS, SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 | Same | CSA STAR, Cyber Essentials Plus, EU-US DFP, FedRAMP Authorized, GDPR, ISO 9001:2015, ISO/IEC 20000-1:2018, ISO/IEC 22301:2019, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, ISO/IEC 27017:2015, ISO/IEC 27018:2019, ISO/IEC 27701:2019, ISO/IEC 42001, PCI DSS and SOC 2 Type II |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Visits | 64K per month. Top 3: 18% CO, 9% US, 5% BR. Others 68% | Same | 3.7M per month. Top 3: 41% US, 16% IN, 4% GB. Others 39% |
| Authority | 33 out of 100 | Same | 68 out of 100 |
| Public vulnerability DB | Discovered and third-party | Same | Discovered |
| Content | Blog, documentation, e-books, glossary, reports, success stories, videos, webinars and white papers | Same | Blog, data sheets, documentation, e-books, events, glossary, infographics, news, podcasts, reports, solution briefs, success stories, videos, webinars and white papers |
| Comprehensive documentation | 13 documentation sections, 9 in common and 4 additional | Same | 11 documentation sections, 9 in common and 2 additional |
| Community | Forum | Same | Forum |
| Sync training | 1 workshop | Same | 1 live product course (subscription-based) |
| Async training | 3 product use courses, all free | Same | Product use training platform (free) |
| Distribution | Direct or with any of its 14 partners | Same | Direct or with any of its partners |
| Marketplaces | AWS | Same | AWS, Azure and GCP |
| Freemium | No | No | No |
| Free trial | 21-day free trial | PoV | No |
| Demo | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open demo | No | No | No |
| Pricing | Contact sales and marketplace | Contact sales | Contact sales and marketplace |
| Pricing tiers | 1 plan | 1 plan | 3 plans (Foundation, Advanced and Prime). None transparent |
| Minimum term | Monthly | Monthly | No information available |
| Minimum payment period | Monthly | Monthly | No information available |
| Minimum capabilities | ASPM, binary SAST, containers, CSPM, DAST, IaC, SAST, SCA and secrets | Same plus: AI SAST, API security testing, MAST, PTaaS, RE and SCR | Vulnerability management |
| Minimum scope | 10 authors | Same | No information available |
| Pricing drivers | Authors | Same | No information available |
| Free implementation | Yes | Yes | No information available |
| Free support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Service
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | ServiceNow Security Operations |
|---|---|---|---|
| PTaaS | No | Yes | No |
| Reverse engineering | No | Yes | No |
| Secure code review | No | Yes | No |
| Pivoting | No | Yes | No |
| Exploitation | No | Yes | No |
| Manual reattacks | Not applicable | Unlimited reattacks | Not applicable |
| Zero-day vulnerabilities | Scanner-based zero-day vulnerability detection | Continuous zero-day vulnerability research | None |
| SLA | Availability | Accuracy, availability and response | Availability and response |
| Minimum availability | 99.95% per year | Same | 99.8% per month |
| After-sale guarantees | No | Yes | Yes |
| Accreditations | CNA, Penetration Testing by CREST and OpenSSF Gold Badge | Same | CNA |
| Pentester certifications | Not applicable | 202 from 59 different types | Not applicable |
| Type of contract | Employee | Same | Employee |
| Endpoint control | No | Total | Not applicable |
| Channel control | No | Total | Not applicable |
| Standards | Some requirements from 67 standards, 2 in common and 65 additional | All requirements from the same standards | 3 standards, 2 in common and 1 additional |
| Detection method | Automated tools | AI, automated tools and human intelligence | Automated tools |
| Remediation | 5, 2 in common and 3 additional | Same, plus 1 | 3, 2 in common and 1 additional |
| Output | 5, 3 in common and 2 additional | Same, plus 2 | 7, 3 in common and 4 additional |
Product
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | ServiceNow Security Operations |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASPM | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| API | GraphQL with JSON | Same | GraphQL and REST with JSON |
| IDE | 5 functionalities | Same, plus 1 functionality | No |
| CLI | Yes | Yes | No |
| CI/CD | Breaks the build | Same | Does not break the build |
| Vulnerability sources | 18 sources, 4 in common and 14 additional | Same | 7 sources, 4 in common and 3 additional |
| Threat model alignment | Yes | Yes | No |
| Priority criteria | CVSS v4.0, CVSSF, EPSS, Fixing cost, KEV, Reachability, Transitivity, Use and VLAI | Same | EPSS |
| Custom prioritization | Priority score | Same | Risk score |
| Scanner origin | In-house | In-house | External (Qualys, Rapid7 and Tenable for infrastructure; Checkmarx, Snyk and Veracode for application security testing) |
| SCA | 21 package managers | Same | No |
| AI security | No | Yes | Yes |
| Reachability | 14 languages | Same | No |
| Reachability type | Deterministic | Same | Not applicable |
| SBOM | 24 package managers | Same | No |
| Malware detection | Yes | Yes | No |
| Autofix on components | No | No | No |
| Containers | 4 distributions | Same | No |
| Source SAST (languages) | 14 | Same | No |
| Source SAST (frameworks) | 23 | Same | No |
| Custom rules | No | No | No |
| IaC | 6 | 2 | No |
| Binary SAST | 1 type of binary | Same, plus 2 types of binaries | No |
| DAST | 7 attack surface types | Same | No |
| API security testing | No | 4 types of APIs | No |
| MAST | No | Yes | No |
| IAST | No | No | No |
| CSPM | Yes | Yes | No |
| Secrets | 313 secrets types | Same, plus verify other attack vectors and secrets exploitability | No |
| AI | 5 functions, 2 in common and 3 additional | Same | 8 functions, 2 in common and 6 additional |
| AI SAST | No | Yes | No |
| MCP | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Open-source | No | No | No |
| Deployment | SaaS (multi-tenant) | Same | SaaS (single-tenant) + on-premises (single-tenant) |
| Regions | US | Same | No information available |
| Status | Yes | Yes | No |
| Incidents | 3 per year | Same | No information available |
Integrations
| Attribute | Essential | Advanced | ServiceNow Security Operations |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCM | 6, 1 in common and 5 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| Binary repositories | None | None | None |
| Ticketing | 3, 1 in common and 2 additional | Same | 1 in common |
| ChatOps | None | None | 2 |
| IDE | 3 | Same | None |
| CI/CD | 23 | Same | None |
| SCA | Native | Same | 3 |
| Container | Native | Same | 11 |
| SAST | Native | Same | 5 |
| DAST | Native | Same | 4 |
| MAST | None | Native | None |
| IAST | None | None | 1 |
| Cloud | 1 in common | Same | 3, 1 in common and 2 additional |
| CSPM | Native | Same | 6 |
| Secrets | Native | Same | None |
| Remediation | None | None | 4 |
| Bug bounty | None | None | 1 |
| Vulnerability management | None | None | 7 |
| Compliance | None | None | None |
The latest update to this comparison was on 2026-10-13. The primary source of information was servicenow.com, which was supplemented by specialized information-gathering sites, social media, and other sources.
More like ServiceNow Security Operations
Free trial — Search for vulnerabilities in your apps for free with Fluid Attacks' automated security testing! Start your 21-day free trial and discover the benefits of the Essential plan. If you prefer the Advanced plan, which includes the expertise of Fluid Attacks' hacking team, fill out this contact form.
Tags
aisecurityasocaspmbountycomparemcp