I'm currently taking a Political Philosophy, and we've just talked about this.

Locke, first off, disagrees with Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and his arguments, which Hobbes published about 30 years earlier. Both talked about states of nature, but Locke goes further and talks about natural rights. His natural rights include private property and labor theory of value. Also, Locke is not a supporter of Divine Rights, meaning that Monarchs had the right to rule because it was given to them by God. That itself was a thought that went against the grain, all the Monarchs at the time believed in Divine Right.

Hobbes and Locke's natural state were similar, but Hobbes thought it to be more violent in nature and pre-government as "a war of all against all" type ordeal. Locke, again disagrees with Hobbes, and believes state of nature to be a more perfect society with people acting within natural laws. He promotes individual rights, especially against a tyrannical power and believes a state of nature which is anarchistic in nature to be preferable to tyranny.

Another difference is their ideal form of government. Remember, both Hobbes and Locke are English and grew up during the Civil War, Cromwell, and Locke had witnessed the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Locke like Representative Democracy, similar to what America has, claiming it the best form of government since the people would elect their representatives. Hobbes wanted a more authoritarian government, ruling with fear to make them afraid of breaking the law. Hobbes sees the worst in people, and thinks government has a role in controlling that.

I'm taking these from Locke's Second Treatise, Hobbes' Leviathan and my class textbook.