Great topic that I'm sure will lead to some impressive discussion.
I'm going to do my best to give Nicholas a rating based in several different categories that have been used, and that I'll attempt to modify here, for American Presidents. Certainly there is a problem with measuring Nicholas up to the likes of a Peter, Catherine and Ivan. Would you try to look at a Buchanan, Andrew Johnson or George W. Bush through the lens of a Lincoln or both Roosevelt's and wonder why they they're destined to fall so far short in most ways? But contrast I'll try to ignore comparing Nicholas II to anyone in particular and simply grade him in each category...
5 = Exceptional
4 = Good
3 = Average to Decent
2 = Poor
1 = Failure
Executive Leadership - 2Revered by some but detested by many others, Nicholas was hardly a unifying figure. His modest economic triumphs, at least until WW1, keep him from being a total failure.
Military Leadership - 1Taking over command from Nikolasha in WW1 was a terrible mistake. His wartime appointments were at best questionable and he was unable to rally either his troops or his people to the cause of fighting on after bitter defeats in two wars. He also lost one war, and was getting pummeled in a second before his country pulled out post-reign.
Background/Education/Experience - 1Poorly prepared for his role of Tsar. Lacking in real world experience and not a natural born leader. Not assertive enough when he needed to be and lacking in temperament at other times.
Communicative Ability - 1Not terribly articulate and his speeches did little to instill public confidence either in his autocratic regime. Terrible salesman of ideas and tone deaf. Equal parts too stern and too vacillating depending on the situation.
Relationship with Government / Management abilities - 3Poor judge of talent and a problematic managing style. Yet also charming and, at times, clever. What he lacked in respect he sometimes made up for in his ability to appoint the right person for a job (Witte), or build a relationship with (Stolypin)
Appointments - 1By for a few exceptions...many of which obvious or holdovers from his father's reign, his appointments were awful. Never more the case than in the revolving door of ministers (some argue through the advice of his wife and Rasputin) during WW1.
Handling of Economy - 3Poor during his final years, thanks largely to the civil disorder throughout Russia spurred on by the Revolution. Also one can give poor marks to any autocratic sovereign for the predominance of classicism. Yet during his first decade the Russia economy flourished under the guidance of the brilliant Sergei Witte.
Luck - 4Few sovereigns have had a more disastrous serious of events to deal with than Nicholas II. Yet he also did a poor job in managing his luck to make the most out of bad situations. Never the less it's hard to imagine any leader being highly successful with the hand that Nicholas was dealt.
Ability to Compromise - 2Stubborn to a fault in spite of his typically weak leadership Nicholas gets an extra point only for his selfless abdication in 1917 under great internal and external pressures.
Courage / Willingness to take Risks - 3Difficult to determine because it's unclear how often Nicholas believed he was taking risks when entering into precarious situations like the two wars he engaged Russia in. His ultra-Conservative outlook mostly precluded risk taking. Although both the establishment of a Duma and his abdication showed a certain level of courage and acceptance of political risk.
Intellect / Vision / Imagination - 2At times clever but rarely forward thinking or intellectually curious, Nicholas was probably of average intelligence when compared to the sovereigns of his day but lacking when compared the leaders of large western/industrialized nations overall.
Domestic Agenda - 2Rather impressively succeeded in keeping a significant majority of power in the throne even after the creation of the Duma. Economic accomplishments in the first half of his reign as well. Yet these are balanced against anti-progressive measures against his people and government, Jewish pogroms and a reactionary mindset towards towards social unrest.
Foreign Policy - 2The Hague Conference was his greatest accomplishment even if it did little good for Europe in the long run. Yet two ill advised and mismanaged wars and little support from foreign leaders during the last years of his reign will forever tarnish his reputation.
Integrity / Morality - 4I man of principle and great faith morality can be judged in stark contrasts. On one hand his a loving husband, devoted family man, compassionate to many and known to be personally kind. On the other hand those qualities were confined to certain circles and individuals. His, at best, acquiescence of harsh pogroms against Russian Jews contradicts his reputation as a man of great moral fiber. Still he was a product of the times and exceptional in certain ways.
Crisis Management - 1Certainly he had much to deal with but it's hard to imagine anyone making more critical mistakes or being as politically and emotionally misguided as Nicholas II. In spite of the warning signs from his military losses against Japan in the Russo-Japanese War and the civil unrest in his country which brought forth the October Revolution, Nicholas seemed completely unprepared to deal with the foreign and domestic crisis's that would devour his county during the final three years of his reign.
OVERALL AVERAGE - 2.13
Barely above "Poor"