No. The Norse were not feudal. "Viking" is not a culture, it implies an ad hoc raiding or trading party.
The Norse system was close enough to Feudal that many historians DO consider it such... but it had some democratic elements, which lead others not to.
A lot depends upon how one defines Feudal.
If it's "A system where those in charge swear personal service and protection of an overlord in exchange for being put in charge, and the ruler swears reciprocal service and protection to the person and their family" - which is the essence of the Oath of Fealty - then, yes, the Norse were effectively feudal - the king swore to the Allþing. The Jarls to the king.
If one focuses on Subinfeudation as the key feature, again, the Norse can be seen as such. The
Cynig
had the right to create
Jarls
, and the Jarls the
Ceorls
.
The Ceorls could call upon the Cynig, as men of his man, the Jarl. (And the Jarls occasionally switched which king they were held to for a variety of reasons.) Ceorls sometimes deposed their Jarls, too.
English Feudalism arises from Angle and Saxon proto-feudal systems (which meet both definitions above, and which is functionally still the system for the 12th C Norse Vikingr). If the English by the 12th C were feudal, then so were the Norse.
The issue that causes some not to see Norse as Feudal is that inheritance was not automatic. It's the same issue with Traveller nobility - until the Þhing/Moot meets and confirms the Cynig/Emperor. And the Archdukes in Traveller can create subinfeudated Baronets and Knights, just like the power to make Ceorls was nominally the Norse Cynyg's but in practice was the Jarls'.