The extent of the feathers covering a bird’s body and the condition of the plumage largely determine the bird’s well-being and aesthetic condition. This investigation aimed to compare changes in the plumage status of laying hens in dissimilar housing systems in the egg-laying period. The experiment was carried out with 1460 non-beak-trimmed laying hens, provided by Bábolna TETRA Ltd., representing a part of the Rhode-type elite lines (Rhode Island Red (RIR) and Rhode Island White (RIW)) used for breeding brown layer hybrids. Hens were kept in the closed experimental laying house of MATE University (Kaposvár Campus), where the RIR and RIW hens were placed into three types of housing systems: EU standard furnished cage (EU) (7560 cm2; 10 hens/cage; 756 cm2/hen); Alternative pen (A) (5.52 m2, floor and litter combination, 53 hens/pen; 1040 cm2/hen); and Conventional cage (C) (3780 cm2; 6 hens/cage; 630 cm2/hen). The feathering status of the hens was examined at five body parts: neck, breast, wings, back and tail at 33, 45 and 61 weeks of age, which was evaluated on a four-grade scale by the same experienced scorer, and the cumulated plumage point (5–20) was calculated for each hen. The RIW genotype had a better plumage condition than RIR at each of the examined times (at the 33rd week: 19.0, 18.3; at the 45th week: 18.4, 17.4; at the 61st week: 17.2, 15.5). The status of the plumage of the RIR hens had deteriorated to a greater extent. As age progressed, the plumage condition of both genotypes significantly deteriorated in all the three housing technologies. The relatively high level of deterioration can be partly explained by the fact that the animals were non-beak-trimmed. At all test times, the total feather score of the birds in the alternative cage housing was significantly better (at the 33rd week: EU: 18.4, A: 19.1, C: 18.5; at the 45th week: EU: 17.6, A: 18.6, C: 17.4; at the 61st week: EU: 15.9, A: 16.9; C: 16.1). The condition of the neck plumage was better in group RIW than in RIR, and the best in the alternative housing at each test time. At the end, the high decomposition results were striking, since at the beginning there were values close to the maximum (3.98; 3.99). It can be concluded that the reason for the dominantly favorable aviary results is that the hens in this type of housing have to come into contact with fewer mechanical factors, their companions do not jump on their backs when changing places, they do not have to stick their heads out of the grid to collect feed, etc. In addition to all this, they also had a littered scratching area and a nest lined with artificial grass, where they could scratch and take a dust bath.