Sorry if none of this TLDR rant makes any sense. It’s 1:30am on my side. I ramble incoherently at this hour.
The most obvious observations here mostly have to do with modeling and lighting. Look at the reference photo.
The surface grooves are all inset a bit deeper and wider. Plus, the various edges are all beveled a bit more, creating wider curved edges. Also, many of the extrusions seem to be more pronounced. Because of all of that, the IRL model is catch more larger speculars and deeper shadows. You can see this happening on the door panels, front face, the orange piece between the cab and the drum, and the grey of the wheel/rim. (The wheel placement is higher in the reference, which places the truck lower and ultimately creates deeper wheel well shadows.)
Looking at the lighting setup, take note of the shadows coming off of the key light. In the reference, they don’t fall off so quickly. The placement of the key light is such in the reference that the shadow is much more prominent than in the CG version. Also, whether it’s a rim or a fill, every light has to serve its own unique purpose. That key light should cast the definitive set of shadows. That’s its purpose. It would seem that, in the CG version, there are multiple light sources competing for attention.
It also seems, as far as I can tell, that the key light in the reference has a slight blue tint and isn’t straight white. That might suggest a florescent light. Some yellow tinting coming from, what I guess, is a standard incandescent light bulb too.
Mind your ambient occlusion too. You could probably crank it up just a bit and enhance those cracks more.
To the issue of materials…
Look at the drum of the mixer. In the reference, it would appear that the shiniest element is that decal. The primary material of the plastic is softer and more matte. (The base of the drum is way flatter, leading to a deeper shadow in the reference too.)
Across the board, the material of the truck’s plastic seems to have an almost skin-like SSS quality to it where the thinner areas feel a little more translucent than the thicker.
The wood of the table, in the reference, has a softer grain. The CG version goes far too heavy in that displacement.
The clear plastic of the truck’s window doesn’t feel right in the CG version. It’s hard to say exactly what’s wrong, but I can offer some basic, general suggestions. The glass should have thickness to it and not just be a single poly. Light has to bounce around and through the surface for it to feel more glass-like. The CG version also looks too clean, which is why it’s so perfectly see-through. In the reference, the plastic window is dirtier and more scuffed. That further deepens the blur of the elements inside and on the other side of the glass.
Staging is also an issue in your CG scene. If you look at the reference image, it’s not just the background that’s blurred. The camera puts the truck into clearest focus. Background elements behind the truck are placed progressively further way. IOW, if we’re thinking of it like a PS image, the truck is in the topmost layer. The mouse layer sits behind that. The cup layer sits behind the mouse layer. ETC and so on. The further we get, the deeper the blur effect of the DOF becomes. In your image, there isn’t much depth to the image as the bowl of fruit and the apple both seem too close to the truck and pretty much on the same plane as each other. It’s as if the only blurry thing in your version is the sky dome.
Mind your camera settings too. If you’re going out to mimic a real scene, you should try to mimic the properties of the reference camera. Focal length. Field of view. ETC. You can see the effects of the real world camera’s properties in how the image distorts and blurs. (Example: Look at the front wheels of the truck VS the back in the reference and the general “flatness” of the CG version.)
Post-wise, you could add some noise to make the final image feel less clean.
I can keep going, but you get the point. Overall, it’s not just the material work that’s taking away from the realism. There are a lot of little things. Materials. Lighting. Modeling. Rendering. Post. Staging. Alone, they’re not enough to detract from the realism. Together, there’s a cumulative effect. Photorealism is all about the small details and the various imperfections.
ANYWAY… I rant. Hopefully, some of this made sense. 
