Marx - Libertarian with a tendency for statist apologia (laid out foundations of socialism as a means-to-an-end), envisioned communism as a stateless society with no hierarchies to oppress the people. A society without any power structures or hierarchies that enable an individual’s agency to be denied is a perfect libertarian state. That’s the basis for Marx’ criticism of religion.

Lenin - Statist and literal leader of a state, more or less socialist in the traditional sense of using a state to bring about a post-state communist society. In the eyes of a radical libertarian, he sold his soul to the devil by compromising with statism for a short-term advantage. And sure enough it led to the not-libertarian Stalinism.

Ayn Rand - Peak neoliberal. Thinks that market-based economics should not only dictate commodity distribution, but everything up-to-and-including sexual identity, eugenics, and the evolutionary fate of humanity. Allows little-to-no opportunity for the individual to pursue their own ambitions, find their own purpose, or to exert agency unless they are of the exceedingly few monopoly-winning elites. The kind of economics that led to monarchies in past eras. The antithesis of the tenets that libertarianism was coined to represent.

So no, they don’t go together at all. In fact they are three perfect examples for demonstrating the libertarian-authoritarian continuum.