Another difference is characterization. JJ's characters are paper thin caricatures. Kirk was essentially portrayed as a punk for example, an impulsive and often self-centred hothead. That isn't the Kirk that Shatner or Vic Mignogna portray. Their Kirk is decisive yet also reflective. Their Kirk is also seasoned and came by his position in a credible manner, by working his way up the ranks and proving himself every gruelling and tedious step of the way. The Kirk character is but one example of how the TOS universe supposedly works and it's quite different then how the JJverse seems to work: by arbitrariness and happenstance.
Abrams was out to make a summer block-buster, a popcorn flick. The STC folks were out to make a story suitable for episodic television and in the style that TOS was known for and endeared itself to countless fans.
They did a wonderful job of evoking the feel of the original. I got the impression that these actors were creating an homage to the performances of the original actors whereas in NuTrek, with the possible exception of McCoy and the odd Shatnerism, the actors have been given free reign. I don't think it's right or fair to say the characterisation is paper thin though - they are just playing the same characters in name only with completely different personalities.
I find Kim Stringer's Uhura (including her previous appearance) to be so much more dignified and professional than Zoe Saldana's. I love Saldana's performance but her character just lacks the level of professionalism that made Uhura stand out as an officer for me personally.
Converting episodes to the big screen did not work out that well and is why, IMO, the TNG movies were just not as fun as the TOS ones except possibly First Contact, which was nothing like an episode.
It's different strokes for different folks. This isn't competing with NuTrek... except possibly in the sexism stakes