In fact, especially after the Catholic church switched to mass in vernacular languages in the 1960s, an Anglican Sunday eucharist service is only subtly different from an English-language Sunday mass. Furthermore, Anglican churches are also episcopal churches with ordained bishops, whom the Anglicans claim to be in apostolic succession although that claim is rejected by the Roman Catholic church, which does not recognize the validity of Anglican ordinations.
In some ways yes but in others, no. The churches have more similarities nowadays but even with the changes to the liturgy made by the Second Vatican Council (and changes to the Order of the Mass since), they remain very different - at least in England.
The biggest difference between the two remains the nature and purpose of worship. Anglican services will usually only offer communion one Sunday a month. This is the case in the services the Queen regularly attends but in no way could the Queen be seen as worshipping in an Anglo-Catholic tradition (where communion is offered at every service). There is no requirement for reconciliation before the service as there is with the Catholic Church, creeds are different, the structure of the liturgy is different and the whole purpose of the Mass according to the Roman Rite is the celebration of the Eucharist which is absent from the Anglican Rite.
In most English Anglican Churches, communion is given at the discretion of the priest which relates to my earlier point. Whilst the Roman Catholic Church is far more centralised in it's doctrine, the Anglicans have a sort of unofficial motto which defines their approach;
"All may, some should, none must". If the Dean of Windsor allowed it, for example, Meghan could receive communion with other members of the Royal Family whether she was baptised or not. This wouldn't be the case if the Royal Family were Roman Catholic and some Anglicans who visit Catholic churches in the UK can get very frosty when they're refused communion.
To pick up an earlier point, this is why the marriage of the Duke of Kent and Princess Marina was celebrated according to two different rites even though the Anglican Church at the time was far more friendly in it's relations towards the Orthodox than it was towards Catholics. By allowing a co-celebration of the liturgy, it allowed Marina to receive the sacrament as part of her marriage which the Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) church requires but the Anglican Rite does not. For the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, the Eucharist must be included to make the celebration of the sacrament of marriage valid - which is why divorcees can't remarry in Catholic or Orthodox churches. They aren't in a state of grace, cannot receive and therefore cannot enter into a valid marriage according to the rules of the church.
Some Anglo-Catholics do follow the example of Rome in this example and so it would be hard to tell the difference in some of their services but certainly the vast majority of Anglican churches in England have what is known as a "low church" approach that really would be seen as very different indeed to a Catholic Mass.
It was interesting to me that even after the changes to the law, there was an element of suspicion raised by some at the very idea that Meghan might be a Roman Catholic. Perhaps it was simply that if Meghan was a Catholic and had married her first husband in a Roman Catholic Church, her subsequent marriage to Prince Harry in an Anglican Church wouldn't be seen as valid by the Roman Catholic Church. But most likely it's a hangover that many Brits seem to have from the Reformation and the events that followed it which still makes Catholicism something to be wary of - even though Catholics now outnumber Anglicans in the UK!