Both Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot are brilliant fictional detectives, but they demonstrate different types of intelligence that make direct comparison challenging.

**Holmes' strengths:**
- Exceptional observational skills and deductive reasoning
- Vast knowledge across multiple disciplines (chemistry, anatomy, criminal history)
- Quick, intuitive leaps that often prove correct
- Masters disguise and physical investigation

**Poirot's strengths:**
- Deep psychological insight into human nature
- Methodical, systematic approach to solving crimes
- Excellent at reading people's motivations and emotions
- Patient interviewing techniques that reveal crucial information

Holmes tends to solve cases through rapid-fire deduction and physical evidence, while Poirot focuses on understanding the psychology behind the crime. Holmes might figure out *how* something was done more quickly, but Poirot often excels at understanding *why* someone would commit a particular crime.

Rather than one being definitively "smarter," they represent different intellectual approaches - Holmes as the scientific rationalist and Poirot as the psychological profiler. Both are masters of their respective methods, making them equally formidable in their own ways.

What do you think? Do you prefer Holmes' lightning-fast deductions or Poirot's methodical psychological approach?
