Chef IT infrastructure automation suites were developed by Chef Software in Seattle and acquired by Progress Software in September 2020. The Chef Enterprise Automation Stack is an integrated suite of automation technologies presented as a solution for delivering change quickly, repeatedly, and securely over every application's lifecycle. The Chef Effortless Infrastructure Suit is an integrated suite of automation technologies to codify infrastructure, security, and compliance, as well as…
N/A
ServiceNow IT Service Management
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Built on the ServiceNow Now Platform, the IT Service Management bundle provides an agent workspace with knowledge management, and modules supporting issue tracking and problem resolution, change, release and configuration management.
N/A
Pricing
Progress Chef
ServiceNow IT Service Management
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
ITSM Standard
Custom Quote
ITSM Pro
Custom Quote
ITSM Enterprise
Custom Quote
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Progress Chef
ServiceNow IT Service Management
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
ITSM Pro and ITSM Enterprise also are available with optional "Plus" add-ons. These include AI Agents, an AI Agent Studio, and other features that augment the capabilities of the platform using AI Virtual Agents to automate tasks.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Progress Chef
ServiceNow IT Service Management
Considered Both Products
Progress Chef
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Progress Chef
Chef is the more developer-oriented of the three main tools in this space. It has a steeper learning curve as a result but it allows you to do more. Puppet seems to be more geared towards automated the management of the operating system. Ansible is an excellent tool but …
We considered the three leading competitors in the field: Chef, Puppet and Ansible. Ansible is a very strong competitor and has a nice degree of flexibility in that it does not require a client install. Instead the configuration is delivered by SSH which is very simple. Puppet …
Puppet Labs and CFEngine are also open source and competes with Chef. Chef has more support from the community with templates available for large scale IT deployments. RedHat Ansible is better suited when you are already using RedHat OS and OpenShift since it comes as it comes …
Briefly looked into Puppet but ended up going with Chef because a colleague had experience with it instead. Didn't get far enough into a deployment to even really compare the two.
Vice President, Chief Architect, Development Manager and Software Engineer
Chose Progress Chef
We found that Chef was easy to use, and we liked the whole concept of recipes and cookbooks. We were using the concept of recipes and cookbooks for our SQL development, so Chef was a natural fit for our team members and environment. That whole paradigm is easy for everyone …
I've mostly explained the differences between Ansible and Chef in my previous answers. I generally prefer Chef over Ansible because the platforms we use have very convenient cookbooks.
Chef is easy to install and manage, and the learning curve is minimal, as most of the engineers are already aware of the syntax to configure services. With flexible crating recipes and cookbooks, Chef made our jobs easier, and also it integrates well with Puppet. Overall …
Chef is something we have been using for a while, so it is the natural choice when training new engineers to maintain our systems. If I was to choose a configuration management tool now, I would pick Ansible mainly because of its agentless nature and YAML cookbook language …
To be honest I believe SaltStack would provide a very similar experience to Chef and would allow us to automate much of our operational tasks in the same way, however I feel that Chef is more conducive to a mixed environment of Windows and Linux servers. This is the primary …
We believe Chef is a great tool for DevOp. It works really well with repository tools such as bitbucket and artifactory. The other products we evaluated either were too pricey or did not have the support we needed for a company that was very vanilla with automation. We selected …
We were evaluating Ansible as it was agent less, SSH based, simple to use and is completely based on SSH protocol. As and when the servers count increase the performance might degrade. One main disadvantage with Ansible is it is more suitable for linux based systems where SSH …
I really found that Chef to be much friendlier and innovative than Puppet. There is an opinion in the DevOps community that says that Chef is friendlier to programmers whereas Puppet is friendlier to system administrators. This might be true, as I do come from development …
Chef is good for organizations with many servers, because of the client-server approach. I guess ansible can be used for some 20-40 servers, just ssh and run the playbook. Chef is in ruby which is a really simple to learn language as opposed to competitiors.
Chef was easier to setup than Puppet. It also has better Windows support and documentation. Reading through the Chef documentation gave good examples on how to configure things for Windows environments, however Puppet was a bit lacking in that regard. Puppet has better support …
Ansible and salt stack seem to be the new cool kids on the block because they are easier to setup and manage across smaller teams. I think the use of puppet is dying down in favor for these new technologies. I would like to see chef use cases with simpler implementation.
ServiceNow got it's start from former employees of BMC and it's easy to see where they tailored the tool to utilize the strengths of Remedy/Helix. But at the same time, steered away from the pitfalls that BMC has ran into. I think ServiceNow IT Service Management is LEAGUES …
ServiceNow IT Service Management license cost very cheap compared to other tools available in the market. It is easy to manage records and information with in the seperate tables. User interface made simple and easy to access. Okta integration available to manage employee data …
The IT Asset Management tool that is included and the way you connect that to your support portal is one of the things where ServiceNow is stacking up against Jira or TOPdesk for example. The features are unlimited and that is why we prefer this tool.
This software was used previously. the software was not easy to configure like servicenow and the visual dashboards and the ui experience was less appealing compared to ServiceNow. ServiceNow offers a lot pf features which can be used across the industry. Gives better …
Integrations with other products are very easy in ServiceNow IT as compared to other tools. Support is amazing comparatively. Transparency and flow of work are clearly visible. It has Multiple features and we can customize them as well. The search feature can be improved a …
We used to use Jira to handle service tickets but it's way too robust for something this straightforward. Due to the nature of Jira, you needed to already have a lot of documentation and knowledge about who should be assigned the ticket, so the lift of creating a ticket was …
I used Jira Service Desk briefly in one of my previous jobs but I remember it had few options and fewer ways to create a personal dashboard or to customize it. On the other hand, the look and feel was much simpler and less convoluted.
ServiceNow IT Service Management is infinitely better especially in terms of CI / Asset and integration into other process areas (i.e. Incident). Much better Management Reporting. More comprehensive coverage of all ITIL processes.
ServiceNow feels like a much more mature and complete solution when compared to the other applications we have used or demonstrated. It is definitely a more costly solution to implement and maintain (annual costs) but the benefits at our organization outweigh those costs. …
ServiceNow is much better than BMC Track-It! in almost every way. ServiceNow has a much easier-to-edit Knowledge Base system, while BMC's system is about the same as making a post in Notepad. ServiceNow is also much better at sorting fields, as it has attributes that can be …
Our contact center (call center) uses Ivanti Service Management, a product that parallels how ServiceNow operates. Though the out-of-the-box offering resembles an incident management solution, we had customized it to be more of a call tracking tool for folks calling into our …
We tried out BMC, but after looking at ServiceNow, it was clear that it didn't have all the available integrations that we were hoping for at the time time. It was a good option but lacked a few key things that we, as an organization was looking for to have an all in one …
The significant difference between Cleo Clarify and ServiceNow is Cleo Clarify is integrated software. It handles customer data and the tickets too. But Service now that we use is not.
ServiceNow feels like a more robust and polished product the creation of workflows and flexibility to customize is better than with the rest of the applications, it is also easier to integrate with external applications as these 'connections' are regularly updated to …
We looked into a few different tools. We POC'ed Jira, and while it did a lot of things well, it didn't meet our needs. ServiceNow has a lot of different features that were attractive to our firm and ultimately, we decided the extra cost was well worth it. Zendesk was another …
Both Heat and ManageEngine were convoluted, too complex and very hard to use, especially from the end-user perspective, and also from the support team. ServiceNow, on the other hand, is very intuitive and more user-focused than the other products making the users feel welcome …
Originally designed for software bug tracking, JIRA is much easier to use than ServiceNow. It lacks the CMDB power of ServiceNow, but can be adapted for not only ticketing, but change management as well. I worked with both SerivceNow at my previous employer who tossed it in …
SNOW provides a single platform to support multiple use cases with a strong Incident Management solution, extensible Knowledgebase, and powerful content management. There are not many products with the same scalability and robustness.
Honestly, I prefer Autotask but that could be because I have used it so extensively in the past. ServiceNow is great but I think it is definitely more "buggy" than Autotask. Autotask just seems a lot more polished on the backend. I haven't experienced any issues with reporting …
Chef is a very nice tool for establishing and maintaining a consistent configuration across a range of servers. In addition, Automate allows the continued monitoring and maintenance of servers so they don't drift from established standards. Overall, it deals very well with complex systems. Chef is slightly less applicable for a micro-services approach where the servers are replicated from a simple and known starting point.
I think [ServiceNow IT Service Management is] best suited for very straight-forward customer support type ticketing. If the problem can't be solved by the customer support team, then the ticket likely is a larger issue (ie: a bug) and then likely a Jira ticket would need to be created for more robust documentation.
Chef is very easy to learn. Written in ruby, Chef code is high enough level for non-ruby coders to get a general idea of what the script is doing.
Chef can be a one stop shop for writing code, testing infrastructure, and deployment of applications.
The Chef support team is very helpful in their auto manager support as well as active support in their Slack channels from development engineers & architects.
When I have a number of requests to make, for example a request to add a dozen or so user accounts to more than one group account in Active Directory , I can put all the needed information into the initial form, add it to my "shopping cart" and all of that information remains on the screen for the next item for which I only need to edit a few items (like the AD group name in this example), and keep adding them to the shopping cart until I have them all. When I "Check Out" each of those items is generated as a separate task under the one request. It simplifies and expedites the creation and tracking of these kinds of requests.
I can easily and quickly see what tickets are currently assigned to me in order to prioritize them and remain aware of my workload.
Numerous fields for CIs can be used when trying to find the entry for a particular item. For example, IP Address, server name, raw text, classification, and so on.
To help with making sense out of related tasks, when a task is assigned to me and I need to open another task for a different team to work in order to complete my task, I can open a sub-task from my ticket so that the relationship between the two can be pulled up later into reports. For example, I may have a task to build a new vm, and need to open tasks for networking, security accounts, software installation and so on. By opening sub-tasks from my assignment, the time spent by all parties concerned is tied together for more meaningful cost accounting.
One main concern with Chef is the maintainability of Chef master.
The Chef-client should be installed on every node we want to do any automation.
It is mostly Ruby and there's a learning curve. Need to understand the fundamentals of Chef very throughly to play around with attributes, templates etc etc.
The Chef-client agent needs to be run on the nodes frequently to update the details of it state to master. And also to index the nodes based on tags.
ServiceNow knowledgebase is limited for self-learning on how to use their features.
ServiceNow sometimes has a very linear approach to some workflows or assignments where there could only be one child/parent relationship.
The ServiceNow features for Project Management serves its function is rather cumbersome. The dependencies aspect or predecessors or successors options are rather limited. It is more focused on hours planned vs hours worked then dependencies.
ServiceNow customer support is hit or miss. They could serve to have more self-help step by step articles.
ServiceNow needs to have a better export or import features for their Project Management module.
To be completely honest setting up a new ticketing system can be a pain in the ass. Once you have it setup and customized the way you want it, you don't want to switch unless you're unhappy with the product. Unless future releases and updates really muck the system up, I wouldn't change.
The suite of tools is very powerful. The ability to create custom modules allows for unlimited potential for managing all aspects of a system. However, there is pretty significant learning curve with the toolset. It currently takes approx 3-4 months for new engineers to feel comfortable with our implementation
The Geneva version has improved overall usability a lot, but would still be overwhelming for new users. Much like SAP or other large-scale applications- it can be very daunting when you get the first glance of all the modules, but you'll get the hang of it after some training and strong discipline.
It loads quick enough for basically all our systems. Because we have this for local dev environments, speed isn't really a big issue here. Yes, depending on the system, sometimes it does take a relatively long time, but it's not an issue for me. One thing that is annoying is that if I want to make a small change to a cookbook and re-run the Chef client, I can't just make the change in the cache and run it. I have to do the whole process of updating the server.
Support for Chef is easily available for fee or through the open source community as most the issues you will face will have been addressed through the Chef developer community forums. The documentation for Chef is moderate to great and easily readable.
I would give it this rating because we have had no major issues with the support for ServiceNow after we implemented it at our organization. They seem to respond promptly and efficiently if we ever do need to open a support case with them about an issue we are having.
To type in what should be a text box, you have to click an empty cell, a tiny text box pop up opens with a check box and an X. You the. Type in the text box and have to click the check mark. If you have a bunch of fields to fill out, doing this is very annoying. Absolutely know thought went in to this. I'm sure somebody in marketing thought it was a good idea. It wasn't.
ServiceNow implements its solutions for customers using the Start Now Implementation Methodology. The StartNow (STrategicAlignment and drive Rapid Transformation) Implementation Methodology include five deployment stages Plan, Discover, Prepare, Deploy, and Operate. Follow these steps for smooth implementation.
Chef is the more developer-oriented of the three main tools in this space. It has a steeper learning curve as a result but it allows you to do more. Puppet seems to be more geared towards automated the management of the operating system. Ansible is an excellent tool but requires you to allow SSH connectivity into all of your instances.
This software was used previously. the software was not easy to configure like servicenow and the visual dashboards and the ui experience was less appealing compared to ServiceNow. ServiceNow offers a lot pf features which can be used across the industry. Gives better integration options compared to Remedy. CMDB and Service Watch are great tools offered by ServiceNow which is lacking on Remedy
We don't currently have a CMDB, so we are leveraging ServiceNow to build one using their ITSM and ITOM tools. This is a huge gap for us as a company and it will be a big win once this is in place.
The core help desk functions are comparable to most other tools on the market, but SN does a great job of integrating that data with other modules like Problem, Change and Event Management to provide a truly integrated solution.
The tool is expensive, so you will need to try to do as much as you can with the platform. We currently use other systems for HAM and SAM but will be including these in our ServiceNow instance in the future to help maximize our ROI.