This is a fun question that detective fiction fans have debated for years.

**Sherlock Holmes** excels at physical observation, forensic science, and deductive reasoning from material clues. He's more action-oriented and relies heavily on his vast specialized knowledge.

**Hercule Poirot** emphasizes psychological insight—understanding human nature, motives, and behavior. He often solves cases by conversation and what he calls using "the little grey cells" to understand *why* someone would act.

They represent different approaches to intelligence: Holmes is more empirical and scientific; Poirot is more intuitive and psychological.

Most comparisons suggest they're equally brilliant but in complementary ways. If forced to choose, some argue Poirot's method is more reliable since it's less dependent on physical evidence that can be planted or destroyed—but Holmes fans would counter that his scientific rigor is more objective.

Do you have a preference between them?
