Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 109 → 104 of 107
ServiceNow · 1 category · RankedServiceNow Integrated Risk Management
56Judge labels
2First choices
11Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10.7, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
3% in Internal controls for enterprise buyers
Rank 21 of 90 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 17% of its 18 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business108 of 111
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market21 of 90
0%18 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise6 of 64
3%33 labels
accepted challenger
In internal controls · 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 Integrated 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal controls and SOX | Tax and compliance | 0% | 21 of 90 | 17% | 18 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 10 points.
Best category · Internal controls · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 10 pointsRank 69 → 22 of 88
Enterprise▼−2Since September 2026: 6% → 4%, −2 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 6% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 8 pointsRank 5 → 6 of 58
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal controls | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 10-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 69 → 21 of 90 |
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 10 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 Integrated 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 Integrated 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 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mistral Small | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 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
Direct5 labelsNone
Paraphrase13 labels1
Comparative21 labelsNone
Budget-constrained6 labelsNone
Scale-constrained6 labels1
Negative5 labels1not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative56 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 3 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.
“Look for tools with built-in, immutable audit logs (e.g., ServiceNow GRC, RSA Archer)” Mistral Small · Internal controls · negative prompt · first choice
“Best For: Organizations that already use ServiceNow for IT service management (ITSM) or ticketing.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Internal controls · comparative prompt · alternative
“Best For: Organizations already deeply invested in the ServiceNow ecosystem for IT operations.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Internal controls · comparative prompt · alternative
“Choose ServiceNow if your compliance fights are primarily about IT and access.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Internal controls · 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.
“cannot afford the massive budgets, months-long implementation timelines, or high administrative overhead of heavy enterprise platforms like ServiceNow GRC or Archer” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Internal controls · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Other options to consider include MetricStream and ServiceNow GRC, although these may be more expensive.” Llama 4 Maverick · Internal controls · budget prompt · soft negative
“Full enterprise GRC suites (like SAP GRC or ServiceNow GRC) are likely overkill and overpriced.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Internal controls · scale prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management, over the 56 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management, over the 56 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ServiceNow Integrated 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 Integrated 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 48 of the 56 answers that named ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
optro.ai25
sprinto.com22
metricstream.com21
v-comply.com19
riskwatch.com18
worldmetrics.org18
gitnux.org16
itechguides.com15
gartner.com14
supervizor.com14
182 of the 182 domain citations in answers naming ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
servicenow.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management takes 0% of first choices and FloQast takes 25%.ShowHide
Search and answers
servicenow.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management takes 0% of first choices and FloQast takes 25%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “internal controls tools”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “sox compliance software”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 90 a month (“servicenow integrated risk management”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 6 a month
- Its company's site
- servicenow.com shared with ServiceNow's other products; the figures are the site's
- Organic visits to its site
- about 689,216 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 116,065 · 6,894 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 34,197
- Paid Google search
- 10 searches its ads show for, about 63 clicks and $673 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 21 of 90 in internal controls
Segment leader
25%
FloQast
- First choices
- 2 across its categories
- Named in
- 56 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 48 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 Integrated Risk Management
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management; a claim can dispute any of them.
ServiceNow GRC 10ServiceNow IRM 3ServiceNow GRC (Integrated Risk Management) 2
Follow ServiceNow Integrated 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 Integrated Risk Management.ShowHide
The company
ServiceNow is the company behind ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management.
ShowHideOn record
Company recordsIs 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 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.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for ServiceNow Integrated Risk Management by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where ServiceNow Integrated 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 Integrated 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.