The blog points to their paper. Kenneth Stanley gets a mention in the first paragraph on related work.

As far as difference, there are many. A major one is NEAT uses a direct encoding of the connections whereas this paper introduces this language describing the RL algorithm. Evolution is then conducted on trees where nodes are operators in that language.

Performance comparison is complicated. A major issue is this paper finds graphs for doing RL. So it re-discovers TD or evolves an improved version of DQN. Whereas NEAT seems to evolve networks suited to specific tasks like pole balancing.