The Total Economic Impact™ Of ServiceNow Security Operations

Improved Vulnerability Response

Evidence and data. The interviewees reported that adopting ServiceNow SecOps materially improved vulnerability response by centralizing vulnerability intake, standardizing workflows, and automating prioritization and tracking across the full remediation lifecycle. Prior to using ServiceNow SecOps, the organizations relied on fragmented, homegrown, or manual processes that interviewees said made it difficult to consistently assign ownership, track aging vulnerabilities, and demonstrate accountability. After implementation, vulnerability data from multiple sources was aggregated into a single system of record, with standardized prioritization and follow‑through.

The head of vulnerability management at the financial services firm stated that consolidating vulnerability workflows into ServiceNow SecOps enabled their team to focus remediation efforts on the highest‑risk systems. By improving visibility and accountability, the organization reduced overdue high-risk vulnerabilities by 60% to 70%. The interviewee attributed this improvement to normalized risk scoring, automated assignment, and escalation workflows that ensured vulnerabilities did not languish unattended.

ServiceNow SecOps also eliminated manual handoffs and delays, which reduced the time required to identify and remediate vulnerabilities. Interviewees said workflows previously relied on email chains and ad hoc coordination that often took hours or days before remediation even began. But they said ServiceNow SecOps replaced that effort with automated case creation, prioritization, and notification. In several instances, activities that previously required analyst intervention were reduced to automated actions that occur immediately upon vulnerability detection.

Interviewees also explained that having improved metrics, dashboards, and SLA tracking further accelerated remediation by making delays visible. Teams gained the ability to identify where vulnerabilities are stalled, understand which groups are responsible, and escalate issues proactively rather than reactively. Interviewees emphasized that being able to measure vulnerability aging consistently was a key enabler for driving behavioral change and improving outcomes across their organizations.

Modeling and assumptions. For the composite organization, Forrester assumes:

• The composite discovers 300,000 vulnerabilities in Year 1, with volume growing at 15% annually.

• The model does not assume a cumulative reduction of vulnerability backlog across years. Instead, it reflects a steady-state level of vulnerability discovery and overdue exposure, consistent with large enterprise environments where new vulnerabilities are continuously introduced.

• The composite considers 30% of discovered vulnerabilities to be high risk, and 50% of these remain unmitigated after 30 days (“overdue”). The remaining unmitigated vulnerabilities are primarily due to ownership gaps, unclear accountability, and manual routing between security teams and stakeholders. These challenges persist due to limited workflow automation and ownership enforcement.

• ServiceNow SecOps reduces the composite’s overdue high-risk vulnerabilities by 60%. This reflects changes to ownership assignment, automatic routing, and SLA tracking rather than automated patching.

• With 10% of these vulnerabilities considered reachable, 6% of these considered exploitable, and a 25% probability of an exploited vulnerability becoming an incident, the average rate at which overdue high-risk vulnerabilities result in a loss is 0.15%.

• The average cost of a security incident is $100,000.

Risks. The improvement to vulnerability response may vary with:

• The number of overdue high-risk vulnerabilities experienced during any given year.

• The probability that such vulnerabilities result in a security incident.

• The average cost of a security incident.

Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 20%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $6.4 million.

Improved Security Incident Response

Evidence and data. The interviewees reported that implementing ServiceNow SecOps significantly improved security incident response capabilities by reducing false positives, accelerating alert triage, improving identification and routing, and decreasing overall mean time to remediation (MTTR). They said that prior to using ServiceNow SecOps, security incident response relied heavily on manual processes, fragmented tools, and email‑based context clarification, which slowed response times and increased analyst workload. After implementation, security incidents were automatically ingested, enriched, prioritized, and routed through standardized workflows, enabling faster and more consistent response.

Several interviewees described improvements in alert triage and reduction of manual effort thanks to higher‑fidelity alerts. The incident response lead from the public sector explained that analysts at their organization previously had to manually create and route tickets for alerts, which took 20 to 30 minutes per alert. But they said with ServiceNow SecOps, high‑fidelity alerts automatically generate and route tickets, allowing analysts to focus on investigation rather than administration. The same interviewee emphasized that while the total volume of alerts is influenced by upstream detection tools, using ServiceNow SecOps dramatically improved how quickly alerts could be triaged and acted upon once generated.

Interviewees also noted that streamlining investigation and decision-making reduced the impact of false positives. Automated enrichment, standardized workflows, and visible case histories helped analysts more quickly determine whether alerts represented true security incidents or could be safely closed without further investigation. As a result, analysts spent less time chasing low‑value alerts and more time on legitimate threats, which improved overall efficiency even when alert volumes remained steady.

Interviewees also said ServiceNow SecOps improved identification and routing of security incidents by replacing ad hoc communication with automated, rules‑based workflows. They explained that incidents previously routed through manual email chains or informal handoffs are now automatically assigned to the correct response teams based on incident type, severity, and impacted assets. Several interviewees said that once an incident reaches a defined stage, ServiceNow automatically triggers task assignment, approval requests, or escalation to ensure incidents do not stall due to unclear ownership.

These workflow improvements directly contributed to reductions in MTTR. Interviewees consistently reported that incidents that previously took hours or longer to progress through identification and coordination now advance immediately through automated routing and response steps. Improved metrics, dashboards, and SLA tracking enabled teams to identify bottlenecks and continuously refine their incident response processes. Visibility into how long incidents spent in each stage made it easier to spot delays, follow up with responsible teams, and adjust workflows to improve performance over time. Interviewees emphasized that simply being able to measure response stages consistently was a critical enabler of ongoing improvements to incident response effectiveness.

Finally, interviewees also said that automation within ServiceNow SecOps allowed security teams to redirect analyst effort toward higher‑value work. By eliminating manual ticket creation, routing, and status tracking, analysts gained the ability to focus on investigation, containment, and remediation activities. Interviewees noted this shift not only improved response times but also enhanced analyst effectiveness and reduced operational friction across the broader security operations function.

Modeling and assumptions. For the composite organization, Forrester assumes:

• The composite has 3,000 security alerts daily.

• Of these alerts, 625 become tickets.

• ServiceNow SecOps reduces the organization’s manual ticketing by 95% (from 30 minutes to 6 minutes per ticketed alert).

• The average fully burdened hourly rate for a Tier 1 SOC analyst is $50.

• The composite’s productivity recapture rate is 75%.

• The composite’s average exposure window per breach is 48 hours.

• ServiceNow SecOps reduces this window by 0.83% (24 minutes) per breach.

• The average cost of a breach for the composite is $1.7 million. This includes the direct costs of remediating and hardening against a similar attack vector, the costs of notifying customers, and the costs of regulatory penalties and legal fees.

• For simplicity, Forrester assumes there is a linear relationship between the composite’s dwell time and incident costs. This approach does not reflect potential variations in impact based on response timing.

Risks. The improvement to security incident response may vary with:

• The number of security alerts.

• The number of tickets produced from these alerts.

• The average fully burdened hourly rate for a Tier 1 SOC analyst.

• The percentage of productivity recaptured.

• The number of breaches experienced annually.

• The dwell time of incidents resulting in a breach.

Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 20%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $4.6 million.

Avoided Cost Of Asset Management

Evidence and data. Interviewees reported that ServiceNow SecOps enabled their organizations to manage a growing population of corporate assets, such as employee machines, servers, and cloud workloads, without a proportional increase in asset management headcount, helping them avoid significant operational costs. Interviewees consistently emphasized the value was not derived from reducing assets or security scope, but from more efficient scaling of security operations to keep pace with unrelenting growth in corporate assets without additional headcount.

Several interviewees described rapid growth in assets under security management due to increased infrastructure, cloud adoption, and containerization. The head of vulnerability management from the financial services organization explained that after centralizing vulnerability and asset data in ServiceNow SecOps, the organization expanded the number of assets actively tracked and governed by approximately 50% without adding dedicated vulnerability management staff. The interviewee attributed this outcome to automated ingestion, standardized workflows, and centralized tracking that eliminated the need for manual asset reconciliation and follow‑up.

Similarly, the senior director of cybersecurity from the manufacturing firm noted that ServiceNow SecOps enabled consolidation of asset‑related security activities — spanning vulnerability management, incident response, application security, and infrastructure security — onto a single platform. By using one system of record tied to asset ownership and context, security teams avoided duplicative effort across tools and teams, reducing the operational burden typically associated with asset growth.

The incident response lead from the public sector shared that automation allowed their organization to process security events tied to a large and growing asset base without meaningfully increasing analyst workload. Automated ticket creation, routing, and task assignment meant that analysts no longer had to manually identify impacted systems, determine ownership, or coordinate remediation steps. As a result, the organization gained the ability to absorb additional assets and alerts while keeping staff levels largely stable, redirecting analyst effort to higher‑value investigation and response activities.

Interviewees also highlighted that improving asset visibility indirectly reduced costs by preventing inefficiencies associated with incomplete or inaccurate asset data. With ServiceNow acting as a centralized hub, asset context (e.g., system criticality, network exposure, ownership) became consistently available during both vulnerability response and incident response. The senior director of cybersecurity from the manufacturing organization emphasized this normalization reduced the time needed to reconcile disparate asset inventories, which is a task that previously required manual effort across multiple teams as environments scaled.

Finally, interviewees noted that ServiceNow SecOps reduced reliance on external services and specialized labor to manage asset growth. They explained that by standardizing processes and enabling internal teams to operate the platform, their organizations avoided the need to continuously add contractors or specialized staff as asset counts increased. The head of vulnerability management at a financial services organization said that while their company’s overall technology environments continued to expand, using ServiceNow SecOps allowed it to “hold the line” on operational staffing by making asset‑related security work more repeatable, transparent, and automated.

Overall, interviewees said ServiceNow SecOps helped their organizations avoid asset‑management cost growth by decoupling asset expansion from headcount growth, which enabled security teams to manage larger, more complex environments with existing resources while maintaining or improving security outcomes.

Modeling and assumptions. For the composite organization, Forrester assumes:

• The composite has 20 vulnerability professionals and 20 IT professionals manage its assets on a regular basis.

• With ServiceNow SecOps, the composite’s number of managed assets increases 50% without the need to increase resources.

• The average fully burdened annual rate for a vulnerability management professional is $130,000.

• Each professional is able to recover 50% of their productivity via the efficiency gains of ServiceNow SecOps, equating to a net productivity improvement of 25% related to asset-based vulnerability management.

Risks. The value of avoiding asset management costs will vary with:

• The current capacity constraints of vulnerability management teams, as reflected by their degree of overallocation.

• The average fully burdened rate for vulnerability management professionals.

• The rate at which the organization deploys ServiceNow SecOps.

Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.8 million.

Avoided Cost Of Decommissioned Tools

Evidence and data. Interviewees reported that deploying ServiceNow SecOps enabled their organizations to decommission multiple legacy security tools and homegrown systems, reducing tool sprawl and avoiding ongoing costs associated with maintaining fragmented security technology stacks. They said that prior to using ServiceNow SecOps, their organizations’ environments were characterized by bespoke tools, open‑source platforms, and siloed systems that required significant manual effort, specialized support, and duplicative workflows. After migrating to ServiceNow SecOps, the organizations retired systems, centralized incident response and vulnerability management, and reduced operational complexity and reliance on external support.

The head of vulnerability management from the financial services firm explained that ServiceNow SecOps replaced three to four internally built or bespoke tools that had been used for vulnerability tracking, reporting, and lifecycle management. These tools required constant maintenance, manual reconciliation of data, and ad hoc reporting. By consolidating these capabilities into ServiceNow SecOps, the organization eliminated the need to sustain parallel systems and significantly reduced the effort required to manage and maintain its overall tooling environment.

Interviewees emphasized that tool decommissioning also reduced indirect costs, including time spent on manual data aggregation, cross‑tool reconciliation, and report generation. Several said that prior to using ServiceNow SecOps, their organization depended on spreadsheets or exported data from multiple tools to produce reports for auditors, executives, and operational teams. After consolidation, reporting was handled through centralized dashboards and standardized workflows, allowing teams to retire reporting tools and manual processes previously required to bridge gaps between systems.

The incident response lead from the public sector described a similar consolidation pattern, noting that ServiceNow SecOps replaced the fragmented ticketing and coordination mechanisms their organization evolved over time. By using ServiceNow SecOps as the primary system for security incidents, the organization reduced its dependence on homegrown workflows and manual coordination methods, avoiding the ongoing costs of sustaining and updating custom solutions.

Across interviewees, tool rationalization emerged as a key contributor to cost avoidance. Rather than layering ServiceNow SecOps on top of an already complex tool ecosystem, interviewees said their organizations consciously used it as a system of record that allowed them to retire older tools and bespoke solutions. This consolidation reduced licensing overlap, support contracts, and internal maintenance burden while simplifying SecOps and improving consistency across teams.

Modeling and assumptions. For the composite organization, Forrester assumes:

• The composite decommissions two tools in Year 1, and one additional tool each following year for a total of 4 decommissioned tools by Year 3.

• Each tool requires an average of $200,000 in annual recurring fees.

• Each tool requires the labor of 0.25 FTEs.

• The average fully burdened annual rate for an FTE who manages a tool is $105,000.

Risks. The value of decommissioning legacy tooling may vary with:

• The number of decommissioned tools.

• The ongoing costs of decommissioned tools, including subscription fees, licensing payments, service and maintenance fees, or other ongoing costs (e.g., paid integrations, add-ons).

• The ongoing internal labor required to maintain tools and whether such support is provided by employees or external parties.

Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.4 million.

Unquantified Benefits

Interviewees mentioned the following additional benefits that their organizations experienced but were not able to quantify:

• Organizational alignment and cross‑team cooperation. Interviewees said ServiceNow SecOps expanded stakeholder involvement in vulnerability management and incident response by making security risk, remediation progress, and ownership visible and understandable to a broader set of senior and nonsecurity leaders, enabling more informed prioritization and accountability discussions without requiring those stakeholders to participate directly in remediation work. The head of vulnerability management from the financial services firm said: “What this really gave us was the ability to show leadership where we stood. Instead of pulling reports together manually, we could show them in real time what our exposure looked like, what was overdue, and where the risk was.” The incident response lead from the public sector shared: “From an incident perspective, leadership can see what’s going on without us having to stop and explain it. They can see the status, what’s been done, and what’s outstanding.”

• Improved decision-making. Interviewees reported that by centralizing security data, workflows, and status information into a single platform, their organizations gained the ability to offer more timely, consistent, and trusted information to security leaders, operational teams, and executives when making prioritization and response decisions. The senior director of cybersecurity from the manufacturing firm said, “We went from pulling data out of different tools and trying to reconcile it in spreadsheets to having a single place where leadership could see what was happening and make decisions off of live data.” The head of vulnerability management from the financial services organization stated, “Once everything was brought into one place and normalized, it made it much easier to have conversations about what actually mattered most and where we needed to focus.”

• Familiarity with ServiceNow. Interviewees said that having prior familiarity with ServiceNow represented a meaningful benefit during the adoption of ServiceNow SecOps. Several from organizations already using ServiceNow ITSM or related workflows before deploying ServiceNow SecOps said this reduced friction associated with platform adoption and enabled faster organizational alignment around security use cases. The senior director from the manufacturing organization said: “ServiceNow was already the enterprise platform. We already had [ServiceNow] ITSM, we already had the governance, and we already had the integrations in place. So, extending it into security made sense for us.” The incident response lead from the public sector shared: “We didn’t have to introduce something completely different. People already knew how ServiceNow worked from the IT side, so we weren’t starting from zero.”

Flexibility

The value of flexibility is unique to each customer. There are multiple scenarios in which a customer might implement ServiceNow SecOps and later realize additional uses and business opportunities, including:

• Future automation and AI readiness. Interviewees indicated that implementing ServiceNow SecOps better prepared their organizations for future automation and AI‑driven capabilities by establishing standardized workflows, structured records, and centralized security data. The incident response lead from the public sector explained that having consistent records and automated workflows in place enabled their organization to begin layering AI capabilities on top of existing processes rather than reworking them. They said, “Once everything is automated and tracked, you can start thinking about what else you can layer on top of it.” Interviewees noted that future automation, orchestration, and AI‑assisted analysis could be adopted incrementally as those capabilities mature, without requiring fundamental changes to their security operations model.

• Vendor and architecture optionality. Interviewees indicated that implementing ServiceNow SecOps increased vendor and architecture optionality by decoupling security workflows from individual point solutions. Rather than tying incident response or vulnerability management processes to specific scanning, detection, or analysis tools, their organizations used ServiceNow SecOps as a centralized system of record that could ingest, normalize, and route data from multiple sources. The head of vulnerability management from the financial services organization said, “We’re able to take different inputs — different tools, different processes — bring it all in, track the lifecycle, and then route it back out to whoever needs to fix it.” Interviewees viewed this flexibility as an important architectural benefit, explaining that ServiceNow SecOps allowed them to preserve optionality as technologies, vendors, and security priorities change, without disrupting established workflows or retraining the organization around new systems.

• Policy, governance, and audit adaptability. Interviewees indicated that implementing ServiceNow SecOps improved their organization’s ability to adapt to evolving policy, governance, and audit requirements by providing standardized records, traceability, and system‑enforced processes. Rather than relying on bespoke or open source tools that require manual explanation and justification during audits, interviewees described ServiceNow SecOps as providing an enterprise‑grade system of record that simplified compliance narratives as requirements change. The head of vulnerability management from the financial services organization explained that moving away from homegrown systems fundamentally changed how their company audits and handles regulatory reviews: “When our auditors or regulators come in, it’s a very different conversation. It’s much easier to explain how things work when you’re using built‑in integrations instead of a custom solution you have to defend.”

Flexibility would also be quantified when evaluated as part of a specific project (described in more detail in Total Economic Impact Approach).