No. The East had pre-existing and enduring heresies (Miaphysitism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, Paulician/Bogomils) as opposed to the West, where the centralized Church had defeated the newer heresies (Waldensians, Fraticelli, Cathars, Lollards, Hussites), and where the Church was more corrupt. The Roman East had a more decentralized Church- TTL, with four different Patriarchs, I'd expect matters to be settled at synods (and for dissenting followers to become heretics as they did in Egypt and for Nestorius. You could also have Old Believers, or revived Iconoclasts). Furthemore, autocephalous churches gave secular rulers a valve for control over Church institutions that was unavailable in the West. The Church owned more land, had more power, and was much larger and centralized. The East had less ecclesiastical lands, a more decentralized Church, and more secular control. Whereas Western rulers would have incentives financially to reform, anything that challenges the Eastern Orthodox Church challenges all of the rulers under that Churches umbrella.
If Christianity remains unified, I could see Western heresies appearing at the edges of Catholicism. The See of Rome's patrimony would be much larger (essentially all of Western Europe), although autocephalous patriarchates and a more decentralized See of Rome might also prevent secular incentives for supporting reforms. I doubt Lutheranism would have lasted without the Wettins.