Well, for starters, Fennel is designed to not introduce a runtime over Lua. That means things like lists only exist at compile-time (mostly for macros manipulating code, and partly because linked lists dont make sense in Lua, and partly because technomancy thinks lists should never be used as a data structure).
Moreover, Fennel aims to be a fusion of Clojure and technomancy's own thoughts on what Clojure should have (e.g. pattern matching in the core language).
If LCL is meant to be a Common Lisp implementation, then it will necessarily have a runtime in order to implement conditions, CLOS, etc. So really, your question boils down to "How does Common Lisp compare to a Clojure dialect?" The answer is: they are worlds apart.
This looks like Common Lisp, so the full kitchen sink, with all the, um, historical, 'car' 'cdr', caaadr' stuff etc.
Fennel is more a lisp-like (clojure-like) syntax for Lua, but IMHO it is an improvement over Lua syntax, simplifies some things, and is good for teaching.
Because it promises one day to implement the full common lisp standard, the hope is that you would be able to run old, previously written code (as long as it was portably written) on LCL with only minor edits.
Moreover, Fennel aims to be a fusion of Clojure and technomancy's own thoughts on what Clojure should have (e.g. pattern matching in the core language).
If LCL is meant to be a Common Lisp implementation, then it will necessarily have a runtime in order to implement conditions, CLOS, etc. So really, your question boils down to "How does Common Lisp compare to a Clojure dialect?" The answer is: they are worlds apart.