  Recent observations have shown that the environmental quenching of galaxies
at z ~ 1 is qualitatively different to that in the local Universe. However, the
physical origin of these differences has not yet been elucidated. In addition,
while low-redshift comparisons between observed environmental trends and the
predictions of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations are now routine, there
have been relatively few comparisons at higher redshifts to date. Here we
confront three state-of-the-art suites of simulations (BAHAMAS+MACSIS,
EAGLE+Hydrangea, IllustrisTNG) with state-of-the-art observations of the field
and cluster environments from the COSMOS/UltraVISTA and GOGREEN surveys,
respectively, at z ~ 1 to assess the realism of the simulations and gain
insight into the evolution of environmental quenching. We show that while the
simulations generally reproduce the stellar content and the stellar mass
functions of quiescent and star-forming galaxies in the field, all the
simulations struggle to capture the observed quenching of satellites in the
cluster environment, in that they are overly efficient at quenching low-mass
satellites. Furthermore, two of the suites do not sufficiently quench the
highest-mass galaxies in clusters, perhaps a result of insufficient feedback
from AGN. The origin of the discrepancy at low stellar masses (Mstar <~ 1E10
Msun), which is present in all the simulations in spite of large differences in
resolution, feedback implementations, and hydrodynamical solvers, is unclear.
The next generation of simulations, which will push to significantly higher
resolution and also include explicit modelling of the cold interstellar medium,
may help to shed light on the low-mass tension.
