The difference between Derrida and Deleuze I think ultimately can be found in their different attitudes. You can see this in how they wrote books on other philosophers. Deleuze always systematises a philosopher he likes, takes the key themes and spins new ideas.

You always see a philosopher in a new light, the books are also worth reading not only for the take on a philosopher but there are some very clear explanations that make moved in Deleuze's own proper work make sense, it's because you can't pull french BS when trying to actually

explain a philosophy and convince people your reading is correct. Derrida on the other hand, whilst he draws deconstruction from readings of Husserl and a number of other philosophers, does the exact opposite of Deleuze.

Derrida relies not on the contributions of say, Husserl, but specifically on him being wrong, he draws out not the underlying system, but the tensions and certain semiotic arbitrariness in them. He's thus both inside and outside of the metaphysical tradition.

He openly admits all metaphysics is bunk whilst still partaking in it, which basically just strips us of heritage whilst admitting that we can't think outside of it. Needless to say this is a shit place to be and not particularly compelling.

Deleuze on the other hand draws from a wide well of western metaphysics and is quite ecumenical, liking both the empiricism of Hume and rationalism of Leibniz and Spinoza for example.

Ultimately this points towards the axial innovations of writing and money which make abstraction and philosophy possible, and our progressively severe scepticism that the resources of abstraction can talk about the world as it exists pre-representationally.

Deleuze points to a new way of engaging metaphysics self aware of its own limits, Derrida is more or less trying to prevent the advent of any form of dogmatism before it ever starts and leaves us stranded. There is more nuance and complexity here and I'm not being entirely fair

To Derrida, but in broad strokes this is the case.