Quite a lot actually. For the fuller picture, I recommend Becker's graduate dissertation "The Swiss Way of War" where she tackles this exact question (Geoffrey Parker, one of the foremost experts on early modern warfare, was one of her advisors). Also, keep in mind that you're asking for a comparison between a phenomenon that lasted several hundred year (the Swiss pike), and how one man executed a vaguely similar idea.

Here's the brief version.

The equipment of the Swiss pike underwent quite a lot of changes between Morgarten and Marignano, and continued to evolve afterwards where they worked almost exclusively as mercenaries. Basically they started with a lot of halberds and a few short pikes. As their neighbors adopted (or improvised) similar formations with a greater number of pikes, the Swiss would increase their own pike count and pike length to compensate. These changes would be precipitated by major losses, formalized in declarations, and loosely implemented. The Swiss sometimes mixed crossbowmen or arquebusiers in with their formations, but these were not major players in Swiss success.

What didn't change was how the Swiss deployed in battle. They used large, deep columns that would aggressively attack the enemy as fast as possible (the exact size of these columns varied by battle, but they were usually 500+. Sometimes they were really big). The size and cohesion of these columns made them resistant to flank attacks, though simultaneous attacks from multiple directions could be dangerous. They could even fight on rough terrain without major problems. The speed and aggressiveness of their advance also tended to catch the enemies off guard which reduced Swiss exposure to cannon and arrow fire, and increased the probability that the enemy formations would be unready for contact and would simply be swept off the field. Even in instances where the Swiss deployed as mercenaries, and had artillery and cavalry support, they acted aggressively as the arm of decisive action. While these were the major themes of Swiss success, there were lots of variations that they would employ depending on the exact circumstances of the battle. Overall, the Swiss pike are best characterized not by their pikes, but by their cohesion and aggression. For two hundred years, the Swiss pike served as the principle line of battle and as the "hammer" used to shatter their enemies.

This is in stark contrast to Alexander's pike. First, the Macedonians were much more uniform when deployed. They usually deployed in 16x16 blocks, each carrying sarissas approximately 18 feet long. These blocks were deployed in long lines with greater frontage than depth. Their usage was radically at odds with the Swiss. Instead of being deployed aggressively as the principle striking force, they were deployed in a more measured fashion. They could push through to disrupt the enemy, but far more often, they were used to hold the line of battle so Alexander's cavalry, the real killers, could find an opportunity to break through or flank the enemy formation. Even during the diodochi era, as the successors states put more and more emphasis on their pikes, I'm not aware of any instance where hellenistic pike arranged themselves in deep columns and rapidly assaulted the enemy.

Sources: "Swiss Way of War" Spends a lot of time on this question, though technically it's about the cultural and practical methods of how Swiss pike developed.

"Weapons and warfare in renaissance europe" Mostly about guns and the early modern period, but the first few chapters survey military events during the late medieval period.

"The Military Revolution" A seminal work on early modern military history. Spends a little bit of time going over the development of pike before the renaissance era.