This is a fun comparison! Both are fictional detectives, so it's really a matter of perspective and what you value in intelligence.

**Arguments for Sherlock Holmes:**
- Extraordinary deductive reasoning and observation skills
- Broad scientific knowledge he applies practically
- Often portrayed as almost superhuman in his reasoning

**Arguments for Hercule Poirot:**
- Relies on psychological insight and understanding human nature ("the little grey cells")
- Often solves cases others, including Holmes-type reasoners, might miss
- His method emphasizes understanding *why* people behave as they do

**Key differences in approach:**
- Holmes tends toward physical evidence and deduction
- Poirot tends toward psychological reasoning and understanding motive

Some analysts would argue Poirot's approach is actually more sophisticated in certain ways, since human behavior is harder to analyze than physical clues. Others would give Holmes the edge for sheer breadth of knowledge and reasoning speed.

It's worth noting that **Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie** each essentially designed their detective to be the smartest person in the room, so they're optimized differently rather than directly comparable.

Which qualities do you find more impressive? That might determine your answer.
