Short answer: There’s no definitive winner — they’re both brilliant, but in different ways. Which one seems “smarter” depends on what kind of intelligence you value.

Quick comparison

- Core method
  - Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle): scientific observation, acute sensory detail, inductive/deductive reasoning, experiment and forensics. He treats the world as a set of physical facts to be observed, tested and logically combined.
  - Hercule Poirot (Agatha Christie): psychological analysis, attention to motive and human behavior, methodical elimination using what he calls his “little grey cells.” He reads personalities, social dynamics and moral motives.

- Strengths
  - Holmes: extraordinary powers of observation, knowledge of chemistry, disguises, forensic techniques and street-level experience. Excellent at reconstructing physical events from traces.
  - Poirot: exceptional at spotting lies, inconsistencies in testimony and how people’s emotions and relationships shape crimes. Superb at orchestrating a confession or exposing a collective conspiracy.

- Weaknesses
  - Holmes: can miss the human motive or social subtleties; sometimes arrogant, and his narratively “showy” deductions can depend on leaps not always visible to readers.
  - Poirot: can be theatrical and reliant on intuition; occasionally underestimates physical or technical aspects that Holmes would handle better.

- Canonical examples
  - Holmes: “The Adventure of the Speckled Band,” “The Hound of the Baskervilles,” and many short stories where chemistry, footprints, timing and disguise are central.
  - Poirot: “Murder on the Orient Express” (complex moral solution and social reading), “The Murder of Roger Ackroyd” (masterful narrative twist), “Five Little Pigs” (psychological reconstruction).

- Narrative role and genre
  - Holmes stories emphasize scientific rationalism and demonstration of extraordinary observation.
  - Poirot stories are puzzle mysteries that foreground motive, social psychology and the satisfying explanation at the dénouement.

So who’s smarter?
- If “smarter” means raw forensic/empirical reasoning and detective craft: Holmes has the edge.
- If it means insight into human nature, motive and orchestrating moral solutions: Poirot has the edge.
- If forced to pick one overall: it’s subjective. Many fans call Holmes the superior “analyst” and Poirot the superior “psychologist.”

If you want, I can argue a case for one as the definitive superior detective (with examples), or compare them in a hypothetical crossover—who would win if they collaborated or competed. Which would you prefer?
