Laruelle devotes a little over three pages in TETRALOGOS (bottom 157 to top 161) to his differences with Deleuze, as he sees them.
1) Deleuze does not attain the « quarter turn » from reality to the Real.
Reply: Deleuze’s idea of the concept as survey, « survol », corresponds to a quarter turn, or a rotation away from the axis of referential reality (left to the sciences).
Deleuze’s quarter turn to science fiction was already accomplished in DIFFERENCE AND REPETITION (1969), as the Foreword to that book makes clear.
2) Deleuze does not accomplish the passage to the generic
Reply: this is a verbal quibble. In WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? Deleuze and Guattari make use of the term « generic » to refer to abstractions and stereotypes. However, the notion of the pure transcendental plane is one of generic, as opposed to naively empirical, events.
3) Deleuze does not reach the plane of radical immanence, which is both philosophical and scientific.
Reply: I have argued that there is a real problem in Deleuze and Guattari’s view of a conceptless science, assigning only functions to science and restricting the concept to philosophy alone. However, there is an even bigger problem in Laruelle’s scientism.
Further, the conclusion of WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? goes a long way to relativise the sharp demarcation between science and philosophy that the book begins with, as does Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of radical empiricism.