Let $θ_0,θ_1 \in \mathbb{R}^d$ be the population risk minimizers associated to some loss $\ell:\mathbb{R}^d\times \mathcal{Z}\to\mathbb{R}$ and two distributions $\mathbb{P}_0,\mathbb{P}_1$ on $\mathcal{Z}$. The models $θ_0,θ_1$ are unknown, and $\mathbb{P}_0,\mathbb{P}_1$ can be accessed by drawing i.i.d samples from them. Our work is motivated by the following model discrimination question: "What sizes of the samples from $\mathbb{P}_0$ and $\mathbb{P}_1$ allow to distinguish between the two hypotheses $θ^*=θ_0$ and $θ^*=θ_1$ for given $θ^*\in\{θ_0,θ_1\}$?" Making the first steps towards answering it in full generality, we first consider the case of a well-specified linear model with squared loss. Here we provide matching upper and lower bounds on the sample complexity as given by $\min\{1/Δ^2,\sqrt{r}/Δ\}$ up to a constant factor; here $Δ$ is a measure of separation between $\mathbb{P}_0$ and $\mathbb{P}_1$ and $r$ is the rank of the design covariance matrix. We then extend this result in two directions: (i) for general parametric models in asymptotic regime; (ii) for generalized linear models in small samples ($n\le r$) under weak moment assumptions. In both cases we derive sample complexity bounds of a similar form while allowing for model misspecification. In fact, our testing procedures only access $θ^*$ via a certain functional of empirical risk. In addition, the number of observations that allows us to reach statistical confidence does not allow to "resolve" the two models $-$ that is, recover $θ_0,θ_1$ up to $O(Δ)$ prediction accuracy. These two properties allow to use our framework in applied tasks where one would like to $\textit{identify}$ a prediction model, which can be proprietary, while guaranteeing that the model cannot be actually $\textit{inferred}$ by the identifying agent.