Before comparing, discard two myths, because they do most of the distorting. The first is that Eastern philosophy is mystical wisdom rather than argument. Nyaya logicians analysed inference and fallacy with formidable technical precision, and Buddhist metaphysicians produced argument as demanding as any in Europe. The second is that Western philosophy is uniformly rational and secular. A millennium of it is theology, and the ancient schools were as concerned with how to live as anything in China.
With those cleared, some genuine differences of emphasis remain. Classical Chinese thought is markedly oriented toward practice — how to act, govern, and cultivate character — and comparatively uninterested in systematic metaphysics for its own sake. Several Indian traditions treat philosophical insight as bound up with the transformation of the person, so that understanding a doctrine without being changed by it counts as incomplete understanding. Western philosophy since Descartes has more often treated argument as self-sufficient, with the philosopher's own character irrelevant to the work.
The convergences are the most interesting part, precisely because they were reached independently. Buddhist philosophers analysed the self as a bundle of changing processes with no enduring core — arriving at a position strikingly close to Hume's, centuries earlier and by an entirely different route. Stoic and Daoist accounts of accepting what lies outside our control resemble each other closely enough that the comparison is now a standard scholarly topic. When two traditions with no contact reach similar conclusions, that is weak but genuine evidence that they are tracking something real.
One methodological caution. The category "Eastern philosophy" was largely constructed by Western institutions needing a name for what they were not teaching, and it flattens enormous diversity — Confucian role ethics and Advaita non-dualism have almost nothing in common. Comparisons at this scale are therefore best treated as a rough orientation for a beginner, to be abandoned as soon as you know enough to work with the actual traditions. The most respectful approach is also the most philosophically productive: read them as bodies of argument with positions and objections, assessable on the same terms as anything else.