  Cosmological hydrodynamical simulations are rich tools to understand the
build-up of stellar mass and angular momentum in galaxies, but require some
level of calibration to observations. We compare predictions at $z\sim0$ from
the Eagle, Hydrangea, Horizon-AGN, and Magneticum simulations with integral
field spectroscopic (IFS) data from the SAMI Galaxy Survey, ATLAS3D, CALIFA and
MASSIVE surveys. The main goal of this work is to simultaneously compare
structural, dynamical, and stellar population measurements in order to identify
key areas of success and tension. We have taken great care to ensure that our
simulated measurement methods match the observational methods as closely as
possible. We find that the Eagle and Hydrangea simulations reproduce many
galaxy relations but with some offsets at high stellar masses. There are
moderate mismatches in $R_e$ (+), $\epsilon$ (-), $\sigma_e$ (-), and mean
stellar age (+), where a plus sign indicates that quantities are too high on
average, and minus sign too low. The Horizon-AGN simulations qualitatively
reproduce several galaxy relations, but there are a number of properties where
we find a quantitative offset to observations. Massive galaxies are better
matched to observations than galaxies at low and intermediate masses. Overall,
we find mismatches in $R_e$ (+), $\epsilon$ (-), $\sigma_e$ (-) and
$(V/\sigma)_e$ (-). Magneticum matches observations well: this is the only
simulation where we find ellipticities typical for disk galaxies, but there are
moderate differences in $\sigma_e$ (-), $(V/\sigma)_e$ (-) and mean stellar age
(+). Our comparison between simulations and observational data has highlighted
several areas for improvement, such as the need for improved modelling
resulting in a better vertical disk structure, yet our results demonstrate the
vast improvement of cosmological simulations in recent years.
