Should I publish as sole author and do everything or invite coauthors so that I mostly just do the programming and benchmarking? Consider the concept of opportunity cost.

There are two possible situations:


I program everything, do the evaluation with a benchmark, tell nobody, write everything and publish alone.
I program everything, do the evaluation with a benchmark, write something and publish with four other authors, that mostly write the paper.


What should I do?

To answer your possible questions:


They are not going to program, no matter what, so that doesn't help to save any time.
Publishing without telling them anything may be perceived in a suspicious way, specially by external reviewers and considering there may be past papers in which I wasn't alone.
It may also be perceived as if I'm not a good team player, which worries me, as finding a new job may be harder due to this.
The order of the authors is alphabetical, and I'm not lucky in that sense.
They are more reputed than me.


PD: the original idea for the paper either comes from me or it comes from someone else. The implementation is always my task. At this very moment I could refine one of those ideas and improve it (the previous version is submitted but not reviewed). I'm very confused about how to proceed.

PD: I am a postdoc now but I am a PhD in a different institution (I haven't defended my thesis, it's nearly finished).
I had discussion with several well-known professors with experience (30+ years in research) about this sort of thing, how did they list authorship in their early papers where they were the less well known authors. I started publishing only several years ago, so I will give their opinion (which I agree with I should add). Their response was the same across the board: the person who did most of the work they ought simply list themselves as first author when writing the paper and if the coauthors ask them about it, then they just discuss their concern with their coauthors honestly. If your coauthors are real scientists (regardless of whether they are more well known than you), and if your claim is true, they will agree with you. 

If your coauthors are administrators mostly, and it's convention in your field and location, that they are added to your paper and listed ahead of you, consider working elsewhere, otherwise the problem cannot be solved in that environment. 

There is another option: publish with them according to whatever convention is appropriate, and if you did not get listed as first author when you did actually most of the work, then at the same time also extend the work (>40% different material) on your own and publish a second paper in another journal as single author, covering both new and old material. (This is how you also find out who the major contributing author was on a particular work, where there are both team and individual papers at once.)

The first solution minimizes opportunity cost; the last solution requires more time and hassle for you, but you don't forgo anything academically, only some time writing a second paper and doing a bit more work.