Short Answer: The primary literary role of "aliens" in the vast majority of science fiction is to represent different aspects of humanity.As such, neither the authors nor readers have much incentive to create truly novel technologies, save as a plot gimmick.
But realistically, while natural "laws" would constrain the evolution of both organisms and their technology so that the differences would not be random and inexplainable, variations in environment, contingency and the history of the alien world would produce different organisms and different technologies. If nothing else, aliens would behaviorally place different emphasis on the same technologies than humans would. Given how much diversity existed in human technologies back before globalization really took off 400 years ago, clearly aliens would be even more diverse.
Neither physical or behavioral (whether genetic or learned) biological evolution follows any predestined path and since technology is just a behavior, it to is subject to natural selection, and likewise has no predestined path.
TL;DR - don't you have something better to do on a Saturday morning?
There is no such thing as predetermined evolution...period.
"Natural Selection" is really the flow of energy through the biosphere where the formation of complex molecules and structures produces more entropy than if the energy just hit and radiated out. The form of organisms is created by the outward pressure of this flow of energy. Variations that consume more energy and dump out more entropy get selected. But while more entropy producing forms are selected for, the particular forms possible both from historical constraints and the exact flow of energy into and entropy out of the environment, produces a vast number of possible forms. Not to mention "black swan" events like asteroid impacts.
Technology in evolutionary terms is a behavior of organisms and behaviors are just as subject to natural selection regardless of whether those behaviors arise from genes or are learned. Natural selection operates on the phenotypes, the structures and behaviors that interact with environment, and not the genotype i.e. the genes, epigenetic factors and neural and other learning structures.
So, technology evolves via natural selection and as such shows all the effects of variation, diversity, and contingency all compressed entropic flow, just like biological structures.
You can see this quite clearly in human technology. We think of primitive hunter-gathers of using chipped flint tools and all to commonly we assume all flint tools are pretty much the same. But archeologist recognize tens of thousands of variations all subtly as distinct as different species and subspecies.
Sadly, our best preserved knowledge of past technology is overwhelmingly in the area of weapons. Even restricted to one weapon class such as "sword" we see vast diversity of swords, each form requiring different individual techniques as well as different tactics, strategies, social and political organization for the groups that use them.
The famous English longbow archers, were unique in Europe and largely unique in the world. Most of the rest of the world who weren't horse riding nomads used crossbows. The degree of training required to master the bow required the wielder either be part of culture (like nomads) wherein all men trained to the bow, or it required a dedicated subculture, which showed up at least briefly in a Hindu cast.
The English had longbows not owing to any special technical knowledge nor a simple fluke. Instead, the anomalous existence of a large population of free, land owing yeoman in Wales and West England created conditions in which a subculture could specialize from childhood in the weapon. After bowmen kicked the French's backside for over a century, the French king, IIRC, Charles II, used distributions of lands, tax policies and feudal cohesion to produce a French yeomanry who specialized in the bow. While never as good as the English longbow men, they were good enough to blunt the English advantage.
The longbow is just one of several examples of technologies that require a particular history, culture, political system and even tax structure, to become a powerful weapon. If you throw in an alien environment and sentients, its unlikely you find longbowmen a Yor-gath.
Technology is restricted by physical laws, and that will funnel their form to follow their function regardless of what planet the technology evolved on. But that also applies to the organisms themselves. There is likely to be recognizable technology on alien worlds but like flint tools in humans, the closer one looks the more diversity one sees.
Alien physiology could make a huge differences as well. The arteries of the vertebrates on earth have no valves in them. A serious puncture or severing of an artery anywhere in the body will cause death. All sharp or penetrating human weapons from flint points to .50cal BFG rounds all seek to punch relative narrow but very deep wounds anywhere in the body possible with the major goal of severing an artery.
But if alien major lifeforms had valves in their arteries, cutting the artery would not necessarily be a fatal or even disabling wound. If a human pumped such an alien warrior with arrows or even bullets, it would just piss him off.
Such aliens would likely not evolve stabbing or puncturing weapons but instead slashing, smashing, hooking, netting etc. Primitive human hunters puncture their prey, usually not fatally, and then jog after the fleeing animal until it bleeds out. Aliens with arterial valves would bring down prey forcefully and immediately. They might rely more on traps or they might hunt deer-like prey by attaching some fatiguing or entangling device to a non-lethal barb which would cause the creature to be unable so encumbered or tangled as to not be able flee or flee fast. (We used to hunt whales this way, in many different cultures, barb them with floats so the drag exhausted them and prevented them from diving.)
Some kind of barbed, weighted net or lasso might take the place of both bow and sword. When they moved on to chemical or other non muscle powered weapons, they would be more interest in crushing or concussive effects than they would penetration. Instead of evolving the handgoone first, they might go for some kind of flamethrower.
Major environment would have a lot of effects. Low grav world like Mars, (assuming they could retain atmosphere etc) would tilt the advantage towards armor, supported against gravity, against weapons, i.e. it would cost less energy to carry a unit of biological or technological armor than it than on earth but the power of weapons, most of which work perpendicular to gravity, would remain the same. An armored knight on Mars could wear armor 2-3 times as thick as on earth but swing of his sword would have the same or (owing to traction issues) less power.
If we bundled all this together with aliens with valves in their arteries and lower gravity favoring heavier armor, their entire hunting and weapon's technology would depend on superficial attacks of prey and foes e.g. setting the on fire, entangling and immobilizing etc.
The type of hunting they could do when in small primitive units, and the types of weapons they would have to use when in large scale coalition warfare, would feedback into their culture in many different ways, including altering their non-weapon technologies, which would feedback... and so on.
However, having said all that, its likely has their technology grew more powerful, it would begin to differentiate less. A nuke wouldn't behave differently on low-grav world than on earth. It would kill by heat, blast and radiation.
We can see the same effects even today with powered technology replacing muscles both in constructive and destructive work. As we say in Texas, a small woman with a gun is just a dangerous a huge man with a gun. Females still lag in infantry warfare where muscles still play a big role but they just as lethal as fighter pilots or radar technicians in bowls of a warship. Once we have real exoskeleton mech suits, even infantry won't matter anymore.
The same leveling would appear in regards to aliens. If we encounter them when their physiology dominates their technology (pre-industrial) they will look much different but if we encounter them in space, its likely the technological differences will not be as significant.
Alien social structure springing from biology would also have effects. For example, some sort of high trust, low internal competition hive-like species would never fallen in anti-nuclear power hysteria, chemophobia, "all-natural" superstitions etc because they wouldn't have the internal and incessant scramble for social status dominance that humans do.
Before you flame me: The National Science Academies of all developed nations have concluded that: 1) Anthrogenic gasses are forcing the climate, 2) Nuclear power can be safely utilized to provide dependable, lowest-carbon energy almost everywhere in the world. (Heck, organic food has literally killed more people in the last 30 years than nuclear power has in nearly 80. 3) Genetically modified foods are safe both for human consumption and the environment. 4) "All-natural" does not mean either beneficial or harmless.
Just as clearly, it’s the same social and political demographic that thought Marxism, Eugenics, Freudianism etc were great ideas as well. The same demographics that were dangerous technophiles for over a century years are now luddites. The only thing that remains constant is that if they win the political debate, they rule society.
Currently, they are causing massive distortions in our technology decisions, with all that implies and if their bet the whole farm on alternative energy doesn't work out to prevent global warming, well...
A hive species might show up to hothouse planet Earth with humans extinct or knocked back to savagery and poke around and think, "they had the technology to stop it all, why didn't they use it." Such technological decisions would be inexplicable to them.
… or, if you don't like that scenario just use the conventional Hollywood inverted narrative. Brave, altruistic and definitely not greedy or power crazed activist and far seeing politicians, who descend intellectually from a subclass who has always been right in the end for centuries,take heed of the climatologist and try to use appropriate technology, "sustainability" etc to head of the problem only to be stymied by people so greed, stupid and short sighted that they can honestly be analogized to those crypto-Nazis who deny the Holocaust in WWII ever happened. Run away global warming or at least climate "change" has the same effect as above.
Either scenario is not one hive aliens would understand to because their primary mode of competition would be hive-to-hive and not individual-to-individual and coalition vs coalition. It would appear to the xeno-archeologist that humans reached a high level of technological development and then just found themselves incapable of making the correct collective technological decisions at a moment of crisis.
So, even as technology begins to diminish physiological difference between species in many environments, a lot differences in technology and technological use would still exist.
That alone might make a good story, humans and an alien species trying to figure out why the other seems to make irrational decisions about some aspect of their technology.