ServiceNow is a big company that helps other companies do their work better. Some people who are good at money stuff think ServiceNow's value will go up or down in the future. They can make more money if they guess right, but they might lose some money too. These people use something called options to show what they think will happen. Options are like special tickets that let you buy or sell ServiceNow for a certain price in the future.

Today, there was a lot of activity with these options, which means many people were making big decisions about ServiceNow's value. Some thought it would go up and bought call options, while others thought it would go down and bought put options. The most popular prices for these options were between $400 and $970 per share.

Some smart people who study companies and how much they are worth gave their opinions on ServiceNow. They think it will be worth around $900 per share in the future. One of them said that was still a good price to buy the company's shares, but not as good as before. Some other people who also know about money stuff want you to know what they are doing with their options for ServiceNow, so everyone can learn and make better decisions too. Read from source...

- The title is misleading, as it implies that there is a frenzy of options activities for ServiceNow, when in reality, the article only mentions 28 extraordinary options activities, which is not an exceptional number. A more accurate title could be "ServiceNow's Options Update" or "Some Notable Options Activities for ServiceNow".
- The general mood among investors is divided, but the article does not provide any evidence or reasoning behind this claim. It seems to be based on a subjective interpretation of the data, rather than an objective analysis.
- The projected price targets are presented as factual and definitive, when in reality, they are based on assumptions and estimations that may vary depending on different factors and scenarios. A more cautious and accurate way to present them would be "possible" or "potential" price targets, rather than "evident".
- The insights into volume and open interest are useful, but the article does not explain how they can help investors make better decisions, nor does it provide any historical context or comparison with previous periods. It also fails to mention any potential drawbacks or limitations of using these indicators.
- The professional analyst ratings are based on a very small sample size (only one industry analyst), and the average target price is not supported by any data or methodology. Moreover, the article does not disclose any conflicts of interest or bias that may affect the analysts' opinions. It also focuses too much on the rating changes, rather than the actual ratings themselves.