RNA is a biopolymer with various applications inside the cell and in biotechnology. Structure of an RNA molecule mainly determines its function and is essential to guide nanostructure design. Since experimental structure determination is time-consuming and expensive, accurate computational prediction of RNA structure is of great importance. Prediction of RNA secondary structure is relatively simpler than its tertiary structure and provides information about its tertiary structure, therefore, RNA secondary structure prediction has received attention in the past decades. Numerous methods with different folding approaches have been developed for RNA secondary structure prediction. While methods for prediction of RNA pseudoknot-free structure (structures with no crossing base pairs) have greatly improved in terms of their accuracy, methods for prediction of RNA pseudoknotted secondary structure (structures with crossing base pairs) still have room for improvement. A long-standing question for improving the prediction accuracy of RNA pseudoknotted secondary structure is whether to focus on the prediction algorithm or the underlying energy model, as there is a trade-off on computational cost of the prediction algorithm versus the generality of the method.The aim of this work is to argue when comparing different methods for RNA pseudoknotted structure prediction, the combination of algorithm and energy model should be considered and a method should not be considered superior or inferior to others if they do not use the same scoring model. We demonstrate that while the folding approach is important in structure prediction, it is not the only important factor in prediction accuracy of a given method as the underlying energy model is also as of great value. Therefore we encourage researchers to pay particular attention in comparing methods with different energy models.