Yes, many, and I'm sure I'll miss something but I shall try to give a good overview here.
The main point I would make is in regards to the basis/wording of your question. You ask about the "WWI treaties" as compared to "Article 5" instead of the the entire North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 which has 14 Articles. At least one of these articles (Article 8) can be seen as a direct response to the problem of overlapping (or sometimes) conflicting alliances that pulled so many nations into WWI and it probably more relevant than Article 5. Article 8 verbatim
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
Contrast Article 8 and generally the single, clear 1949 North Atlantic Treaty with the hodepodge of treaties, alliances, and informal agreements between and amongst members of the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente that built up over decades from the time of Bismarck and the 1870 Franco-Prussian war up until hostilities in 1914. Bismarck engineered the League of 3 Emperors between, Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungry against the perceived threat of France. Later through Austria-Hungary saw Russia as the main threat and that alliance dissolved. Italy was added later to to the German-Austrian "dual alliance" forming the triple alliance.
On the other side, the entente started with France trying to counter-balance Germany with a treaty with Russia in 1894 followed by the Entente Cordial with Britain in 1904 and only LATER became the Entente in 1907 when Britain and Russia had the 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention.
Note also that the majority of these treaties, alliances, or informal (sometimes secret) agreements were generally bilateral in nature (i.e. France-Russia, then France-UK, then UK-Russia) and each could have it's own stipulations or requirements. NATO, however is the result of ONE treaty that, at its founding, was negotiated by ALL signatory parties at the same time. They were, quite literally, all on the same page. Any country joining later would, within the terms of the alliance at least, be subject to the same terms AND obligations.
We should also note the collective security arraignment that came about 'NATO' as it's own institution/organization instead of just the "North Atlantic Treaty" is hugely consequential in the alliance's endurance and success. NATO has it's own headquarters in Belgium, it's own command and staff with dedicated personnel etc. NATO members work to standardize equipment as much as possible, train together, and have a unified command structure under SACEUR, who is always an American Officer and incidentally is also the Commander of US European Command (EUCOM). (Incidentally, this is why it was such a huge deal when France withdrew from the integrated command structure in 1966, although notably NOT out of the North Atlantic treaty or 'NATO' as some might incorrectly state). Nothing even remotely close EVER existed either with the Triple Alliance or the Entente.
The last salient point I would bring up is that NATO, and it's mirror in the now defunct Warsaw Pact, had clear, hegemonic leader as it's security guarantor / backer (the US or the USSR). While one can see that Germany was he clear hegemon of the Alliance, it was still (at least on paper) first among equals up until war actually broke out. The entante, however was 3 great powers of near-peer status (or so each would claim), none of whom would subordinate their troops to a foreign commander as NATO member states do to SACEUR.
I don't know if I've helped, made things more confused, or not answered your question at all. Sorry...I tried...