Salmonellosis is a global food safety challenge caused bySalmonella, a gram-negative bacterium of zoonotic importance. Poultry is considered a major reservoir for the pathogen, and humans are exposed through consumption of raw or undercooked products derived from them. Prophylaxis ofSalmonellain poultry farms generally mainly involves biosecurity measures, flock testing and culling, use of antibiotics, and vaccination programs. For decades, the use of antibiotics has been a common practice to limit poultry contamination with important pathogenic bacteria such asSalmonellaat the farm level. However, due to an increasing prevalence of resistance, non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animal production has been banned in many parts of the world. This has prompted the search for non-antimicrobial alternatives. Live vaccines are among the developed and currently used methods forSalmonellacontrol. However, their mechanism of action, particularly the effect they might have on commensal gut microbiota, is not well understood. In this study, three different commercial live attenuatedSalmonellavaccines (AviPro®Salmonella Vac T, AviPro®Salmonella DUO, and AviPro®Salmonella Vac E) were used to orally vaccinate broiler chickens, and cecal contents were collected for microbiomes analysis by 16S rRNA next generation sequencing. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) was used to study the cecal immune-related genes expression in the treatment groups, whileSalmonella-specific antibodies were analyzed from sera and cecal extracts by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We show that vaccination with live attenuatedSalmonellavaccines had a significant influence on the variability of the broiler cecal microbiota (p= 0.016). Furthermore, the vaccines AviPro®Salmonella Vac T and AviPro®Salmonella DUO, but not AviPro®Salmonella Vac E, had a significant effect (p= 0.024) on microbiota composition. This suggests that the live vaccine type used can differently alter the microbiota profiles, driving the gut colonization resistance and immune responses to pathogenic bacteria, and might impact the overall chicken health and productivity. Further investigation is, however, required to confirm this.