Yes. She did and she is right. About everything, honestly.

Her only working fault is her resistance to mythic thought and spirituality which has both put a damper on the spread and durability of her philosophy and failed to provided the new worldview or framework for interacting with the world in a way that enables us to achieve objectivist ideals on a paradigmatic level. It lacks robustness, missionality, and psychological combat readiness, essentially, in the fight for cultural manifestation.

Now, bear with me...

Ayn Rand is interesting for a number of reasons, but what is absolute most interesting about her is that she found high fidelity Gnosticism without the Gnosticism.

Because Gnosticism was effectively lost for hundreds to thousands of years depending on the sect (though the Nag Hammadi discovery was known in her lifetime), she essentially rediscovered the ethos of near unadulterated Gnosticism on her own (a multiple discovery event), but due to her atheism relayed it without the transcendental elements and probably never even knew that she had done it.

See, whereas Marxism is just Christianity without the "God" - secular Catholicism, Objectivism is just Gnosticism without the Gnosis - secular Gnosticism.

If you look at the values and axioms of Marxism they are the exact same as the values and axioms of Catholicism only with spiritual elements removed or replaced by some version of "the collective," because they are just iterations of the same belief system for a different demographic. The same is true for Gnosticism and Objectivism which allows us to both reverse engineer Objectivism to find the logical ends of Gnosticism and to fill out Objectivism were Rand leaves off for greater potency.

(She leaves off at self-interest as the highest end, but she does not give us reasons why the Self matters or has any legitimate value. You can't find answers to stuff like that in a materialist mindset.)