Rand is most known for her "virtue of selfishness" idea and her high esteem if not worship of people who she considers to be superior due to their daring, individuality, flaunting of social conventions, and self-centeredness. This is a dumbed down or "mini me" version of Nietzsche's ubermensch concept.
Rand is not known for her view on any is-ought problem or her views on universals. She may have something to say about them, perhaps it's even original in some manner, but it's generally not what most Objectivists and Libertarians flock to her for. They flock to her to get some philosophical approval for their own self-centerdness. To those people I again recommend they read Nietzsche, to learn what one of the most influential philosophers of all time though on this subject that Rand tried to co-opt.
I never claimed and do not claim that everything Rand ever thought was thought first by Nietzsche, but the central idea that she's known for and that she championed she got (in a very distorted way) from him.
I also never suggested that Rand should not be read. It is a pity that she is ignored in academia. As a result, most of Rand's fans are often effectively isolated from the rest of the philosophical community and wallow in an intellectual backwater, with little awareness that there are other philosophers, what they thought, or how Rand's ideas relate to them. It would be much better if her work was read, taught, engaged, and challenged in academia, and her place in place in philosophical history was made more overt.
Finally, I have read Rand. Not nearly as much as her fans would have me read, I'm sure. But enough to say what I say from first-hand experience.