Most societies have ranks of power and privilege. The AngloSaxon one thus might look the same as Feudalism if that is all that you know about it. They had the ranks, in order, of Kings, Thanes, Churls, Slaves. Within the Thane rank they would have been a range of seniorities like Eorldermen, who acted as senior Thanes if you will.

The AngloSaxon period in England lasted 400 years or so, and so the structure would have changed somewhat during this time.

Essentially this was a post tribal system attempting to deal with groupings much greater in size and geography than previously. Over time more structured heirachies were developing.

Feudalism is different because it held within it a complex system of granting of ownership of property in return for obligation of service (mainly military), the three corners being lords, vassals and feifs. This could cause complex allegiance conflicts. For example it wasnt uncommon in the conflicts between England and Scotland for various Border lairds to have military obligations to both sides of the war, their goal was to choose the side that was going to win. Generally speaking this would be unlikely in the AngloSaxon environment where you would generally be on one side or 't other.

Note, these difference are also formal ones retrospectively applied to systems of governance that developed 'organically' and with clear end goal in mind. So theyre subject to exceptions and disagreements in matter of definition. The AS system was fairly linear and insular, you owned loyalty to one one and so on up to the top. Feudalism could result in various alleigances and was more so a 'obligation in return for land/property' type situation.