Well, aside from the fact that one is a 17th-century Dutch Baroque painting, and the other a 19th-century French impressionist work (with all that means in terms of style, brushwork, and color), the Ruisdael depicts a natural scene with little evidence of human presence, aside form the rutted track, while Monet's work presents a natural scene in which the recreational activities of human beings are among the major subjects.
That reflects a difference in period, too. Monet was an urban artist who had an interest what urban people did for entertainment when they could get away from the city. Ruisdael, as one of the world's early and greatest landscapists, observed, romanticized, and aggrandized nature itself. Where evidence of human beings exists, it has a tendency to be somewhat dwarfed or eclipsed by the natural forms, with only a few exceptions, or the evidence of human habitation may involve daily work, not weekend entertainment and diversions.
