Comparison of ASCII phonetic alphabets

Most, tho not all of these are based on the IPA.

A brief introduction of the systems:

• X-SAMPA, a general extension of SAMPA designed to accommodate the entire IPA. Z-SAMPA, develop'd on the ZBB, is a fully backwards compatible extension that includes the Extensions to the IPA and various other symbols, such as true mid vowels. Z-SAMPA extensions are mark'd by a green background.
• CXS is another variation of X-SAMPA used mostly on the CONLANG list. It is not entirely backwards compatible.
• Kirsh.
• TIPA, used in LaTeX typesetting of IPA.
• Carrasquer (description needed) (Out of the "minor" systems, this is the only one I've ever seen in use)
• Branner (description needed)
• Coutt-Barrett, a very non-compatible system that basically involves graphical mnemonics to suggest the IPA shape. The "diacritics" are even prefixal rather than postfixal, as in all other systems.

Symbols expressible by means of diacritics are not included in the table.

Latin minuscules

Aluckily, just about everyone agrees that these should be equated with their IPA values. Tabulating these would be a waste of spacetime :-) Let's just remark on the habit of sometimes falling back on transcription based on some specific language's orthography. Common cases include <y> for /j/, which may be follo'd with <j> for /ʤ/ and <c> for /ʧ/ or /ʦ/. A good indicator of this type of transcription is seeing <š ž> for /ʃ ʒ/.

Latin capitals

There is a fair amount of agreement here too.

IPA	X-SAMPA (Z-SAMPA)	CXS	Kirsh.	TIPA	Carr.	Brann.	CB	Comments
ɑ	A	A	A		A	A	@	CB sets itself apart from the rest with the very first entry.
β	B	B	B	B	B	V	|B	Branner too, now.
ç	C	C	C	C	C	c"	>c
ð	D	D	D	D	D	D	-d
ɛ	E	E	E	E	E	E	E
ɣ	G	G	Q		G	g"	&V	This is where we diverge for two different interpretations.
ɢ	G\	G\	G		G"	G	G

Numbers and punctuation

IPA	X-SAMPA (Z-SAMPA)	CXS	Kirsh.	TIPA	Carr.	CB	Comments