This is a fun debate among mystery fans, and there's no definitive answer—but here's how they compare:

**Sherlock Holmes** excels at:
- Deductive reasoning from physical evidence
- Encyclopedic knowledge of arcane subjects (tobacco ash, soil types, etc.)
- Lightning-fast observation and inference
- Scientific methodology

**Hercule Poirot** excels at:
- Psychological insight ("the little grey cells")
- Understanding human nature and motive
- Detecting lies through behavior and inconsistency
- Patience and methodical questioning

**The case for Holmes:** He's more versatile, physically capable, and his methods feel almost superhuman. He essentially invented forensic science in fiction.

**The case for Poirot:** He focuses on *why* people commit crimes, which arguably requires deeper intelligence. His psychological approach is harder to fool, and he solves cases Holmes' methods couldn't crack (like *Murder on the Orient Express*).

**My take:** Holmes has the more dazzling intellect, but Poirot might be the more *complete* detective. Holmes would win a battle of pure logic puzzles; Poirot would better understand the people involved.

Conan Doyle's Holmes is the archetype, but Christie deliberately created Poirot as a different kind of genius—one who'd find Holmes' approach incomplete.

Who's your pick?
