As they've come to dominate university philosophy departments, the Analytics especially have started to branch out in to all sorts of fields they refused to touch in the past -- even going so far as to start reading and discussing Continental philosophers themselves (while mostly missing the point, in my opinion).
Their difference today is mostly one of approach or writing style, how they understand philosophers of the past, and which of them they consider important. Analytics also seem to be generally more scientistic than Continentals.
It's hard to summarize the difference any better in words that are comprehensible to people who haven't studied philosophy. You really should just read some representative philosophers from each tradition yourself. It's glaringly obvious if you do.
 - Note: That's "scientistic" -- not to be confused with "scientific". For a good introduction to the difference avoid Wikipedia (which is pretty awful at philosophy), or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which is much better, but is very heavily slanted towards the Analytic perspective) and see: Tom Sorell's "Scientism": https://www.amazon.com/Scientism-Philosophy-Infatuation-Scie...