Exactly so. I also think there should be some consideration of her role as the first female ruler of England, if you discount Jane Grey and the Empress Matilda. She was the first, and I think there were probably problems as the result of that alone. She then made the situation worse through the ill-advised marriage to Philip of Spain.
That being said, I think she should also get a few personality points for sheer spunk. It took considerable guts to ride to Framingham and challenge Northumberland's usurpation. And even more importantly, because it required long-term stubborness, she was able to maintain her sense of self throughout the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. There was a very real chance that Henry would have allowed her to die a la Catherine of Aragon, a forgotten, marginal figure isolated from the comfort of court. She publicly rebuked those around Edward that tried to infringe upon her freedom to worship as she chose.
All of Henry's children were brilliant. The academic records that have survived in each case attest to that. But only Elizabeth was competent, and that makes all the difference in a successful reign. I really think that most of the successful monarchs --- Elizabeth, Henry V, even Henry VIII --- had an appetite for power that allowed them to relish and defend their roles as ruler. When Nicholas II threw himself into Sandro's arms weeping that he was not prepared to be Tsar, or Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were discovered weeping in each other's arms after the death of Louis XV and wailing that they were too young to rule, it might have been better if people had trusted their instincts!