The differences are endless, the only thing in common is the name VTOL
A helicopter has indeed 6 degrees of freedom. The helicopter is controllable by 5 input variables: lateral & longitudinal cyclic, collective, anti-torque pedals and power). But non of the inputs correlate purely with a single degree of freedom; there is a lot of cross talking between the control variables.
Change any one of the inputs and you disturb the balance of forces and moments so that you have the change something else as well.
For example, if you change the collective to climb, you will also require more power to avoid the rotor from slowing down. More power means more torque on the rotor, so now you also need to control the anti-torque pedals to balance that out. But the tail rotor will then change the side force on the helicopter, so now you need lateral cyclic to compensate for that. That upsets the vertical equilibrium slightly and so we are back at the start.
Another major difference is the stability. Helicopters need constant control inputs to stop them from diverging from the initial state. The QNET VTOL would very likely find a balance point for a given control input setting. A helicopter, being unstable, would diverge from its initial state and crash, not matter what constant input you would give. It needs constant input adjustments to keep it in check.
From a control system point of view, this QNET VTOL system seems to be a nice tool to get practical experience with modeling, system parameter identification and PID control. However there is still an enormous step to go before one can design a helicopter control system. An intermediate step would be controlling a quad-copter which is in terms of control system complexity somewhere in the middle (but still very far from the QNET VTOL)