The investment return and value of each of the Funds’ shares will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when sold, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance may be lower or higher than performance data quoted. Consider the Funds’ investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses carefully before investing. The prospectus and the statement of additional information include this and other relevant information about the Funds and are available by visiting newyorklifeinvestments.com/etf or by calling 1-888-474-7725. Read the prospectus carefully before investing.

Each of the Funds’ performance that is current to the most recent month-end is available by visiting newyorklifeinvestments.com/etf or by calling 1-888-474-7725.

Availability of Proxy Voting Policies and Proxy Voting Records

You may obtain a description of the IndexIQ Active ETF Trust proxy voting policies, procedures and information regarding how each Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the 12-month period ending June 30 (available by August 31) without charge, upon request, by calling 1-888-474-7725, visiting neworklifeinvestments.com/etf, or by accessing the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

Availability of Quarterly Schedule of Investments

The Funds file their complete schedules of portfolio holdings with the Commission for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-PORT. The Funds’ Forms N-PORT is available on the Commission’s web site at www.sec.gov. Additionally, the Funds’ make their portfolio holdings for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year available on the Funds’ website at newyorklifeinvestments.com\documents.

Availablity of Premium/Discount Information

Each Funds’ premium/discount information is available, free of charge, on the Funds’ website at newyorklifeinvestments.com/etf or by calling 1-888-474-7725.

Electronic Delivery

Receive email notifications when your most recent shareholder communications are available for review. Access prospectuses, annual reports and semi-annual reports online.

To enroll:

Visit https://www.fundreports.com

If you have questions about IndexIQ e-Delivery services, contact a representative at 1-888-474-7725.

IndexIQ® and IQ® are registered service marks of New York Life Insurance Company.

“New York Life Investments” is both a service mark, and the common trade name, of certain investment advisors affiliated with New York Life Insurance Company. IndexIQ® is the indirect wholly owned subsidiary of New York Life Investment Management Holdings LLC and serves as the advisor to the IndexIQ ETFs. ALPS Distributors, Inc. (ALPS) is the principal underwriter of the ETFs, and NYLIFE Distributors LLC is a distributor of the ETFs. NYLIFE Distributors LLC is located at 30 Hudson Street, Jersey City, NJ 07302. ALPS Distributors, Inc. is not affiliated with NYLIFE Distributors LLC. NYLIFE Distributors LLC is a Member FINRA/SIPC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Shareholder Letter (unaudited)

Message from the President

Despite high levels of volatility and sharp, short-term shifts in value, broadly based stock and bond indices saw relatively modest overall changes during the 12-month reporting period ended April 30, 2023. A deeply challenging investment environment during the last eight months of 2022, driven by increasing inflationary pressures and aggressive monetary efforts to curb them, was followed by a more positive, but uneven, economic and monetary backdrop during the first four months of 2023.

In April 2022, before the start of the reporting period, U.S. inflation stood at an annualized rate of 8.3%, up from 4.2% a year earlier. The U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”), had begun to take steps to curb inflation, raising the federal funds rate from near zero in March 2022. Eight separate rate hikes during the reporting period brought the benchmark rate up to 4.75-5.00% in March 2023. Inflation seemed to respond, easing steadily from a peak of 9.1% in June 2022 to 4.9% in April 2023. Although further interest rate increases are expected in 2023, by the end of the reporting period, it appeared that the Fed might be nearing the end of the current rate-hike cycle. Economic growth, although slower, remained positive, supported by historically high levels of employment and robust consumer spending. International economies experienced similar trends, with more modest central bank interest-rate hikes curbing inflation to a degree.

Equity market behavior during the reporting period reflected the arc of monetary policy and economic developments. From May through early October 2022, as inflation raged and interest-rate increases accelerated, investors shied away from perceived risk, favoring relatively defensive and value-oriented sectors over growth-oriented sectors. The S&P 500® Index, a widely regarded benchmark of U.S. market performance, declined by more than 13% during this time, while international stocks suffered even sharper losses. These trends reversed from mid-October 2022 through the end of the reporting period, as inflationary pressures eased and markets began to anticipate an end to rising interest rates. Between mid-October 2022 and April 30, 2023, the S&P 500® Index regained all the ground it lost earlier, ending in modestly positive territory. International developed-markets stocks bounced back even stronger, prompted by surprisingly robust economic resilience in Europe and further bolstered by China’s reopening after the government rescinded its “zero-COVID-19” policy and eased regulatory restrictions on key industries. The declining value of the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies also enhanced international market equity performance. Emerging markets generally lagged their developed-markets counterparts while outperforming U.S. markets.

Fixed-income markets followed a similar pattern of retreat and recovery. Bond prices trended sharply downward early in the reporting period, as yields rose along with interest rates. Short-term yields rose faster than long-term yields, producing a yield curve inversion – with long-term rates lower than short-term rates – that persisted from July through the end of the reporting period. However, market sentiment improved in the second half of the reporting period as inflationary pressures eased. As the Fed decreased the magnitude of rate increases, focus turned toward the possibility of eventual rate reductions and a potential ‘soft landing’ for the economy. On the negative side, a small number of high-profile, regional U.S. bank failures in March and April 2023 raised fears of possible wider banking industry contagion and future credit constraints.

While many market observers believe the Fed has neared the end of the current cycle of rate increases, the central bank’s rhetoric remains sharply focused on its target inflation rate of 2%. Only time will tell if the market’s favorable expectations prove well founded.

However the economic story unfolds in the months and years to come, at New York Life Investments we remain dedicated to providing the unique investment solutions required to build smarter portfolios during challenging times. Thank you for continuing to place your trust in our team.

Sincerely,

Kirk C. Lehneis

President

The opinions expressed are as of the date of this report and are subject to change. There is no guarantee that any forecast made will come to pass. This material does not constitute investment advice and is not intended as an endorsement of any specific investment. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited)

IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF

How did IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF perform during the 12 months ended April 30, 2023?

For the 12 months ended April 30, 2023 (the “reporting period”), IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF returned 2.53% at NAV (net asset value) and 2.63% at market price.1 To compare, the ETF’s Benchmark Index, the Bloomberg Short Treasury 3-6 Month Index,2 returned 2.76% for the same period.

What factors affected the ETF’s relative performance during the reporting period?

The ETF held overweight positions relative to the Bloomberg Short Treasury 3-6 Month Index in corporates, asset-backed securities (“ABS”) and commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) throughout the reporting period. To facilitate these overweight positions, the ETF maintained an underweight position in the U.S. Treasury sector. The corporate sector was the ETF’s best-performing sector during the reporting period. The overweight position in ABS, particularly AAA3 floating-rate securities, also added to relative performance during the reporting period. The overweight position in CMBS, particularly AAA non-agency securities, detracted from performance. The underweight position in U.S. Treasury securities also detracted from relative performance.

During the reporting period, how was the ETF’s performance materially affected by investments in derivatives?

During the reporting period, the use of derivatives was limited to interest rate derivatives used to keep the duration4 of the ETF in line with portfolio management’s target duration. Generally, interest rate derivatives had a positive impact on performance.

What was the ETF’s duration strategy during the reporting period?

During the first half of the reporting period, the ETF maintained a duration that was shorter than that of the Bloomberg Short Treasury 3-6 Month Index. This duration positioning was accretive to performance as interest rates moved higher. During the second half of the reporting period, the ETF generally maintained a duration that was longer than that of the Index in the front end of the yield curve5 (0-2 years) and a duration shorter than the Index in the 7-to-10-year part of the curve. This curve positioning detracted from performance. As of April 30, 2023, the effective duration of the ETF was 0.38 years, compared to a duration of 0.36 years for the Index.

During the reporting period, which sectors were the strongest positive contributors to the ETF’s relative performance and which sectors were particularly weak?

During the reporting period, the ETF maintained overweight exposure compared to the Bloomberg Short Treasury 3-6 Index in the industrials, financial and utility sectors, all of which were accretive the ETF’s relative performance. Among industrials, performance in the communications, energy and technology subsectors were particularly strong, with bonds issued by Verizon Communications Inc, PG&E Corporation and General Motors among the ETF’s best performers. Among financials, overweight exposure to the banking and finance company subsectors had the most positive impact on relative performance, particularly holdings in Bank of America, The Goldman Sachs Group and AerCap Ireland Capital. Within securitized products, ABS was the best performing sector. Within the ABS sector, AAA collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) were accretive to the ETF’s performance. Within the CMBS sector, the ETF’s overweight positions relative to the Index in the AAA

The price used to calculate the market price returns is the mean between the day’s last bid and ask prices and does not represent returns an investor would receive if shares were traded at other times.

See page 7 for more information on index returns.

An obligation rated ‘AAA’ has the highest rating assigned by Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”), and in the opinion of S&P, the obligor’s capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is extremely strong. When applied to ETF holdings, ratings are based solely on the creditworthiness of the bonds in the portfolio and are not meant to represent the security or safety of the ETF.

Duration is a measure of the price sensitivity of a fixed-income investment to changes in interest rates. Duration is expressed as a number of years and is considered a more accurate sensitivity gauge than average maturity.

The yield curve is a line that plots the yields of various securities of similar quality — typically U.S. Treasury issues — across a range of maturities. The U.S. Treasury yield curve serves as a benchmark for other debt and is used in economic forecasting.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

non-agency sub-component detracted from performance. The ETF’s underweight position in the Treasury sector relative to the Index also detracted from performance during the reporting period.

What were some of the ETF’s largest purchases and sales during the reporting period?

The ETF’s largest purchases during the reporting period included bonds issued by Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Pacific Gas and Electric, The Huntington National Bank and Capital One Financial. The ETF’s largest sales during the same period were holdings in Skyworks Solutions, Hyundai Capital America, Avery Dennison, Bayer US Finance II and OGE Energy.

How did the ETF’s sector weightings change during the reporting period?

During the reporting period, the ETF held overweight exposure relative to the Bloomberg Short Treasury 3-6 Index to the industrial, financial and utility subsectors within the corporate sector. The ETF increased its exposure to corporate credit during the fourth quarter of 2022 as all-in yield levels within investment-grade corporate bonds passed the earnings yield of the S&P 500® Index, which we identified as a potential positive catalyst for the sector. Investment-grade corporate yields reached levels not seen since 2009, a dynamic which subsequently resulted in increased demand within the asset class. Within the ABS sector, we increased the ETF’s allocation to the auto subsector to enhance portfolio yield. During the second half of the reporting period, we reduced the ETF’s allocation to CMBS to limit exposure within the sector as the fundamental backdrop remained uncertain.

How was the ETF positioned at the end of the reporting period?

As of April 30, 2023, the ETF held its most significant overweight exposure relative to the Bloomberg Short Treasury 3-6 Month Index in corporate securities. Within the corporate sector, the ETF held overweight positions in financials, industrials and utilities. The ETF’s second-largest overweight was concentrated in the ABS sector, particularly in the CLO subcomponent. The ETF also held overweight positions in the CMBS sector. As of the same date, the ETF held an underweight position in the U.S. Treasury sector.

The opinions expressed are those of the portfolio managers as of the date of this report and are subject to change. There is no guarantee that any forecasts will come to pass. This material does not constitute investment advice and is not intended as an endorsement of any specific investment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

Hypothetical Growth of a $10,000 Investment
(Since Inception through 4/30/23)

Fund Performance History

IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF
(as of April 30, 2023)

	1 Year		3 Year		Since Inception1
	Avg Annual		Avg Annual		Avg Annual		Cumulative
IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF Market Price2		2.63%		1.45%		1.02%		3.88%
IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF NAV		2.53%		1.52%		1.03%		3.93%
Bloomberg Short Treasury 3-6 Month Index3		2.76%		0.96%		1.22%		4.65%

Fund Inception Date: 7/30/2019

The price used to calculate the market price returns is the mean between the day’s last bid and ask prices. The market price returns do not represent returns an investor would receive if shares were traded at other times.

The Bloomberg Short Treasury 3-6 Month Index is the primary benchmark index for the ETF. The Bloomberg Short Treasury 3-6 Month Index is a component of the Barclays Short Treasury Index, which includes aged U.S. Treasury bills, notes and bonds with a remaining maturity from 1 up to (but not including) 12 months and excludes zero coupon strips.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Performance results do not reflect the deduction of taxes that a shareholder would pay on fund distributions or on the redemption or sale of fund shares. Performance figures may reflect certain fee waivers and/or expense limitations, without which total returns may have been lower.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF

How did IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF perform during the 12 months ended April 30, 2023?

For the 12 months ended April 30, 2023 (the “reporting period”), IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF returned −1.31% at NAV (net asset value) and −1.59% at market price.1 To compare, the ETF’s Benchmark, the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index2 returned −0.43% for the same period.

What factors affected the ETF’s performance during the reporting period?

The ETF underperformed its benchmark, primarily due to the ETF’s slightly longer duration3 than that of the benchmark a position negatively impacted by the significant move in interest rates that occurred during the reporting period.

During the reporting period, how was the ETF’s performance materially affected by investments in derivatives?

During the reporting period, the ETF used U.S. Treasury futures to hedge its duration, a position that detracted slightly from returns.

What was the ETF’s duration strategy during the reporting period?

As mentioned above, the ETF maintained a slightly longer duration than that of the benchmark during the reporting period. As of April 30, 2023, the ETF’s duration was 6.5 years, versus a duration of 6.2 years for the benchmark.

During the reporting period, which sectors made the strongest contributions to the ETF’s performance and which sectors made the weakest contributions?

The ETF’s positioning in securitized products, along with selection and overweight exposure to both investment-grade and high-yield credit, made positive contributions to returns. (Contributions take weightings and total returns into account.) The largest detractors included underweight exposure to U.S. Treasury securities and select positions within preferred securities, specifically in the banking industry.

What were some of the ETF’s largest purchases and sales during the reporting period?

Within the investment-grade credit component of the ETF, we went “up in quality.” While the ETF maintained an overweight position in banks and utilities, we pared back exposure to regional banks late in the reporting period as concerns mounted regarding the viability of certain banks following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and First Republic Bank. As valuations within the agency mortgage sector improved (spreads widened), we increased the ETF’s weight there as well. Both additions were funded by decreasing the ETF’s exposure to Treasury securities.

How did the ETF’s sector weightings change during the reporting period?

During the reporting period, the ETF increased its exposure to agency mortgages, commercial mortgages and residential mortgages. The ETF reduced its exposure to U.S. Treasury securities and high-yield corporate bonds.

How was the ETF positioned at the end of the reporting period?

As of April 30, 2023, the ETF held overweight exposure to investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, commercial mortgages and asset-backed securities. As of the same date, the ETF held underweight exposure to U.S. Treasury securities and agency mortgages.

The price used to calculate the market price returns is determined by using the closing price listed on the NYSE Arca and does not represent returns an investor would receive if shares were traded at other times.

See page 9 for more information on index returns.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

Hypothetical Growth of a $10,000 Investment
(Since Inception through 4/30/23)

Fund Performance History

IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF
(as of April 30, 2023)

	1 Year		Since Inception1
	Avg Annual		Avg Annual		Cumulative
IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF Market Price2		-1.59%		-5.94%		-10.65%
IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF NAV		-1.31%		-5.86%		-10.50%
Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index3		-0.43%		-5.40%		-9.71%

Fund Inception Date: 6/29/2021

The Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index is the primary benchmark index for the ETF. The Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is a broad-based benchmark that measures the investment-grade, U.S. dollar-denominated, fixed-rate taxable bond market, including Treasuries, government-related and corporate securities, mortgage-backed securities (agency fixed-rate and hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage pass-throughs), asset-backed securities, and commercial mortgage-backed securities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

IQ MacKay Multi-Sector Income ETF

How did IQ MacKay Multi-Sector Income ETF perform during the period since its inception on July 26, 2022, through April 30, 2023 (the “reporting period”)?

For the reporting period, IQ MacKay Multi-Sector Income ETF returned 0.42% at NAV (net asset value) and 0.45% at market price.1 To compare, the ETF’s Benchmark Index, the Bloomberg U.S. Universal Index,2 returned −0.35% for the reporting period.

What factors affected the ETF’s performance during the reporting period?

Interest rate volatility continued throughout the reporting period, but by April 30, 2023, the ETF’s longer duration3 posture had a positive impact on returns, as rates along the yield curve4 fell during the reporting period. A rebound in credit, both investment grade and high yield, also had a positive impact on the ETF’s performance.

During the reporting period, were there any market events that materially impacted the ETF’s performance or liquidity?

The defining occurrence of the reporting period began in 2022 with the rapid repricing of expectations for global monetary policy, especially in the United States. An exceptionally strong labor market, concerns that long-term inflation expectations may become unanchored and few signs of a let-up in underlying inflation pressures led U.S. Federal Reserve officials to significantly adjust their outlook for monetary policy, and markets followed suit.

During the reporting period, how was the ETF’s performance materially affected by investments in derivatives?

The ETF used U.S. Treasury futures to hedge duration. These positions made a slightly positive contribution to returns. (Contributions take weightings and total returns into account.)

What was the ETF’s duration strategy during the reporting period?

The ETF maintained a longer duration than that of the Index during the reporting period. This duration position added slightly to the ETF’s relative performance. The duration of the ETF at the end of reporting was 6.6 years, compared with the Index duration of 6.0 years.

During the reporting period, which sectors were the strongest positive contributors to the ETF’s performance and which sectors were particularly weak?

The ETF’s positions in securitized assets made the strongest contributions to performance during the reporting period. Overweight exposure to both investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds also contributed positively to returns. Underweight exposure to Treasury securities and select positions within preferred securities, specifically within the banking industry, detracted.

What were some of the ETF’s largest purchases and sales during the reporting period?

There were no material changes to the ETF’s positions during the reporting period. That said, to move the ETF up in quality, we slightly trimmed high-yield and investment-grade credit exposure, while increasing exposure to U.S. Treasury securities and mortgages.

How did the ETF’s sector weightings change during the reporting period?

We increased the ETF’s positions in U.S. Treasury securities and in agency and residential mortgages, while reducing positions in high-yield corporate bonds and commercial mortgages.

See page 12 for more information on index returns.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

Hypothetical Growth of a $10,000 Investment
(Since Inception through 4/30/23)

Fund Performance History

IQ MacKay Multi-Sector Income ETF
(as of April 30, 2023)

	Since Inception1
	Cumulative
IQ MacKay Multi-Sector Income ETF Market Price2		0.45%
IQ MacKay Multi-Sector Income ETF NAV		0.42%
Bloomberg U.S. Universal Index3		-0.35%

Fund Inception Date: 7/26/2022

The Bloomberg U.S. Universal Index is the primary benchmark index for the ETF. The Bloomberg U.S. Universal Index represents the union of the US Aggregate Index, US Corporate High Yield Index, Investment Grade 144A Index, Eurodollar Index, US Emerging Markets Index, and the non-ERISA eligible portion of the CMBS Index. The index covers USD-denominated, taxable bonds that are rated either investment grade or high-yield.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

IQ MacKay ESG High Income ETF

How did IQ MacKay ESG High Income ETF perform during the period since its inception on October 25, 2022, through April 30, 2023 (the “reporting period”)?

For the reporting period, IQ MacKay ESG High Income ETF returned 7.12% at NAV (net asset value) and 7.29% at market price.1 To compare, the ETF’s Benchmark Index, the Bloomberg Very Liquid High Yield Index,2 returned 8.14% for the same period.

What factors affected the ETF’s relative performance during the reporting period?

Despite the banking crisis that erupted in mid-March 2023, the reporting period ended with good gains for credit investors. While the current environment continues to indicate that we are in the late stages of the economic cycle and a time when caution is warranted, as supported by the events within the banking sector in March, it is interesting to note that high-yield spreads are near the median percentile versus historical levels.

Looking at performance by quality, all segments delivered positive results, with lower-quality bonds outpacing their higher-quality counterparts, benefiting from a healthy appetite for risk, particularly in January 2023. Bonds rated CCC3 and below were the top performers. Similarly, there were gains within all high-yield sectors. Leisure delivered the strongest results, benefiting from the continued economic reopening. Banking was the worst performer, driven by the idiosyncratic failures within the sector and concerns about possible contagion.

What was the ETF’s duration4 strategy during the reporting period?

The duration of the ETF at the end of the reporting period was 3.75 years, slightly longer than the duration of the Index at 3.6 years.

During the reporting period, which sectors were the strongest positive contributors to the ETF’s relative performance and which sectors were particularly weak?

During the reporting period, communications, technology and energy were top-performing sectors, while consumer cyclical and non-cyclicals were the most significant detractors.

What were some of the ETF’s largest purchases and sales during the reporting period?

During the reporting period, the ETF initiated positions in Community Health Systems (medical facilities), Altice USA (telecommunications) and Dana (auto parts). During the same period, the ETF exited positions in Clear Channel Outdoors (advertising), Brookfield Residential Properties and Nationstar Mortgage.

How did the ETF’s sector weightings change during the reporting period?

There were no material changes to the ETF’s positioning during the reporting period. We continue to maintain our late cycle view, which is reflected in the ETF’s up-in-quality portfolio positioning.

How was the ETF positioned at the end of the reporting period?

As of April 30, 2023, the ETF held overweight exposure to energy, technology and basic industry, and underweight exposure to consumer cyclical and communications.

See page 14 for more information on index returns.

An obligation rated ‘CCC’ by S&P is deemed by S&P to be currently vulnerable to nonpayment and is dependent upon favorable business, financial and economic conditions for the obligor to meet its financial commitment on the obligation. It is the opinion of S&P that in the event of adverse business, financial or economic conditions, the obligor is not likely to have the capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation. When applied to Fund holdings, ratings are based solely on the creditworthiness of the bonds in the portfolio and are not meant to represent the security or safety of the Fund.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

Hypothetical Growth of a $10,000 Investment
(Since Inception through 4/30/23)

Fund Performance History

IQ MacKay ESG High Income ETF
(as of April 30, 2023)

	Since Inception1
	Cumulative
IQ MacKay ESG High Income ETF Market Price2		7.29%
IQ MacKay ESG High Income ETF NAV		7.12%
Bloomberg Very Liquid High Yield Index3		8.14%

Fund Inception Date: 10/25/2022

Bloomberg Very Liquid High Yield Index is the primary benchmark index for the ETF. The Bloomberg Very Liquid High Yield Index is designed to measure the performance of publicly issued U.S. dollar denominated high yield corporate bonds with above-average liquidity. High yield securities are generally rated below investment grade and are commonly referred to as “junk bonds.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

IQ MacKay Municipal Insured ETF

How did IQ MacKay Municipal Insured ETF perform during the 12 months ended April 30, 2023?

For the 12 months ended April 30, 2023 (the “reporting period”), IQ MacKay Municipal Insured ETF returned 1.74% at NAV (net asset value) and 2.00% at market price.1 To compare, the ETF’s Benchmark Index, the Bloomberg Municipal All Insured Bond Index2 returned 2.89% for the same period.

What factors affected the ETF’s performance during the reporting period?

The ETF underperformed its Benchmark Index during the reporting period, in part due to structure and yield curve3 positioning. A slight overweight exposure to 5% coupons aided in the ETF’s relative performance; however the ETF’s overweight exposure to 4% coupons and underweight exposure to zeros represented a significant drag. Late in the reporting period, U.S. Treasury interest rates pivoted lower as the U.S. Federal Reserve hinted toward an end to its historic hiking cycle. Overweight positioning in the local general obligation sector produced the largest absolute and relative outperformance; however underweight positions in the transportation and leasing sectors more than offset this benefit. From a geographic perspective, credit selection in the states of Illinois and Texas aided relative results; however the ETF’s exposure to credits in the states of New Jersey and California detracted from absolute and relative results.

What was the ETF’s duration4 strategy during the reporting period?

The ETF typically maintains a duration-neutral strategy that falls within a +/− 10% band of the Benchmark Index’s duration. The ETF finished the reporting period with a modified duration5 of 6.72 years versus the Benchmark Index’s modified duration of 7.08 years. The ETF’s slightly below-benchmark duration represented a modest drag on the ETF’s relative results.

During the reporting period, which sectors made the strongest contributions to the ETF’s performance and which sectors made the weakest contributions?

Overweight positioning in the local general obligation sector produced the largest absolute and relative outperformance; however underweight positions in the transportation and leasing sectors more than offset this benefit.

What were some of the ETF’s largest purchases and sales during the reporting period?

The ETF typically maintains a very diversified portfolio. The largest trade during the reporting period was less than 1.44% of the ETF. No single trade represented a large percentage of the ETF’s assets.

How did the ETF’s sector weightings change during the reporting period?

During the reporting period, the ETF’s decreased its exposure to the education, hospital and water/sewer sectors. The ETF increased its exposure to the local general obligation, transportation and leasing sectors.

See page 17 for more information on index returns.

Modified duration is inversely related to the approximate percentage change in price for a given change in yield.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

How was the ETF positioned at the end of the reporting period?

As of April 30, 2023, the ETF held significantly overweight exposure to the local general obligation sector of 45.49% versus 16.76% for the Underlying Index. In addition, the ETF held overweight exposures versus the Index to credits in the states of Illinois (22.58% versus 9.28%), and Texas (12.22% versus 9.08%). From a sector standpoint, the ETF’s largest relative underweight exposure was to the transportation sector (11.09% versus 19.31%). The largest underweight exposure from a geographic standpoint was to credits in the state of California (8.68% versus 19.48%).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

Hypothetical Growth of a $10,000 Investment
(Since Inception through 4/30/23)

Fund Performance History

IQ MacKay Municipal Insured ETF
(as of April 30, 2023)

	1 Year		3 Year		5 Year		Since Inception1
	Avg Annual		Avg Annual		Avg Annual		Avg Annual		Cumulative
IQ MacKay Municipal Insured ETF Market Price2		2.00%		0.13%		2.12%		2.03%		11.77%
IQ MacKay Municipal Insured ETF NAV		1.74%		0.21%		2.24%		2.00%		11.59%
Bloomberg Municipal All Insured Bond Index3		2.89%		0.78%		2.47%		2.04%		11.86%

Fund Inception Date: 10/18/2017

The Bloomberg Municipal All Insured Bond Index is the primary benchmark index for the ETF. The Bloomberg Municipal All Insured Bond Index is a total return performance benchmark for municipal bonds that are backed by insurers with Aaa/AAA ratings and have maturities of at least one year.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

IQ MacKay Municipal Intermediate ETF

How did IQ MacKay Municipal Intermediate ETF perform during the 12 months ended April 30, 2023?

For the 12 months ended April 30, 2023 (the “reporting period”), IQ MacKay Municipal Intermediate ETF returned 2.66% at NAV (net asset value) and 2.80% at market price.1 To compare, the ETF’s Benchmark Index, the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index 1-15 Year Blend2 returned 3.50% for the same period.

What factors affected the ETF’s performance during the reporting period?

The ETF underperformed its Benchmark Index during the reporting period, in part due to structure and yield curve3 positioning. Underweight exposure to bonds maturing between and one and 15 years detracted from relative performance, while overweight exposure to bonds maturing beyond 15 years added to performance. The ETF’s below-Index exposure to 5.0% coupons dragged on performance. In the first eight months of the reporting period, the ETF underperformed due to the rapid rise of interest rates in reaction to higher inflation and the response of the U.S. Federal Reserve. In the last four months of the reporting period, the ETF, however, the ETF’s curve positioning and coupon structure contributed to relative performance.

What was the ETF’s duration4 strategy during the reporting period?

The ETF typically maintains a duration-neutral strategy that falls within a +/− 10% band of the Underlying Index’s duration. The ETF finished the reporting period with a modified duration5 of 4.3 years versus the benchmark modified duration of 4.1 years. The ETF’s slightly long duration represented a modest drag on the relative results.

During the reporting period, which sectors made the strongest contributions to the ETF’s performance and which sectors made the weakest contributions?

Over the reporting period, the ETF’s underweight and underperforming exposure to both the local and state general obligation sectors detracted from performance. For the same period, no sectors contributed positively to relative performance.

What were some of the ETF’s largest purchases and sales during the reporting period?

The ETF typically maintains a very diversified portfolio. The largest buy trade during the reporting period was a high quality general obligation issue for Parker TX that represented less than 1.65% of the ETF. The largest sell trade was for a smaller position of Yale University variable rate demand notes, which are a cash equivalent. No single trades represented a large percentage of the ETF’s assets.

How did the ETF’s sector weightings change during the reporting period?

During the reporting period, the ETF’s exposure to local general obligation bonds declined from 26.5% to 23.4%, while exposure to the hospital sector declined from 8.7% to 6.4%. Over the same period, exposure to the water/sewer sector rose from 7.2% to 10.4%, while exposure to the IDR/PCR (industry development revenue/pollution control revenue) sector position increased from 4.8% to 7.4%.

See page 20 for more information on index returns.

Modified duration is inversely related to the approximate percentage change in price for a given change in yield.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

How was the ETF positioned at the end of the reporting period?

As of April 30, 2023, the ETF held an overweight position in the local general obligation sector, with 23.4% exposure versus 15.6% for the Underlying Index. In addition, the ETF held overweight exposures to credits in the states of Illinois (10.5% versus 4.8%) and Texas (14.4% versus 9.2%). From a sector standpoint the ETF’s most significantly underweight exposure was to the state general obligation sector (7.1% versus 16.8%). The most significantly underweight exposures from a geographic standpoint were to credits in the states of California (6.9% versus 16.7%) and New York (7.4% versus 15.0%).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

Hypothetical Growth of a $10,000 Investment
(Since Inception through 4/30/23)

Fund Performance History

IQ MacKay Municipal Intermediate ETF
(as of April 30, 2023)

	1 Year		3 Year		5 Year		Since Inception1
	Avg Annual		Avg Annual		Avg Annual		Avg Annual		Cumulative
IQ MacKay Municipal Intermediate ETF Market Price2		2.80%		1.28%		2.56%		2.27%		13.25%
IQ MacKay Municipal Intermediate ETF NAV		2.66%		1.23%		2.56%		2.25%		13.11%
Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index 1-15 Year Blend3		3.50%		0.85%		2.08%		1.61%		9.23%

Fund Inception Date: 10/18/2017

The Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index 1-15 Year Blend is the primary benchmark index for the ETF. The Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index 1-15 Year Blend covers the U.S. dollar-denominate long-term tax-exempt bond market. The index has four main sectors state and local general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, insured bonds and pre-refunded bonds.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF

How did IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF perform during the 12 months ended April 30, 2023?

For the 12 months ended April 30, 2023 (the “reporting period”), IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF returned 2.28% at NAV (net asset value) and 2.33% at market price.1 To compare, the ETF’s Benchmark Index, the Bloomberg California Intermediate Municipal Bond Index2 returned 4.32% for the reporting period.

What factors affected the ETF’s performance during the reporting period?

A longer duration3 profile during the reporting period, along with overweight exposure to lower coupon structures relative to the Benchmark Index, negatively impacted the ETF’s relative performance, as U.S. Treasury yields jumped significantly through the first half of the reporting period.

During the reporting period, were there any market events that materially impacted the ETF’s performance or liquidity?

The U.S. Federal Reserve’s hawkish stance against inflation had a negative impact on performance, as interest rates increased dramatically during the first half of the reporting period, resulting in an inverted Treasury yield curve.4

What was the ETF’s duration strategy during the reporting period?

The ETF’s duration strategy was to be positioned in line with the Benchmark Index. As municipal and U.S. Treasury yields moved significantly higher during the first half of the reporting period, many of the ETF’s lower coupon bonds began to price at a discount, which resulted in a longer duration profile for the overall ETF versus the Index. During the second half of the reporting period, we reduced the ETF’s overweight to 3% coupon bonds, as well as longer, out-of-Index securities, and brought the ETF’s duration in line with, to slightly shorter than, the Index.

During the reporting period, which sectors made the strongest contributions to the ETF’s performance and which sectors made the weakest contributions?

The strongest positive contributions to the ETF’s performance relative to the Benchmark Index during the reporting period came from overweight exposure to the local general obligation and other revenue sectors. (Contributions take weightings and total returns into account.) Conversely, the weakest contributions to relative performance came from underweight exposure to the state general obligation and water/sewer sectors.

What were some of the ETF’s largest purchases and sales during the reporting period?

Reflecting our objective of running a highly diversified portfolio, all the ETF’s purchases and sales were similar in size, at approximately 2%. During the reporting period, we took an active trading approach to restructuring the ETF to reduce some of its structurally overweight positions (hospital and 3% and 4% coupons), while increasing its underweight exposures (5% coupons and bonds with maturities in the five-to-ten-year range).

How did the ETF’s sector weightings change during the reporting period?

During the reporting period, we reduced the ETF’s overweight exposure to hospital- and water/sewer-backed debt, while increasing exposure to IDR/PCR (industry development revenue/pollution control revenue), transportation- and state general obligation-backed debt.

See page 23 for more information on index returns.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

How was the ETF positioned at the end of the reporting period?

As of April 30, 2023, the ETF continued to hold significantly overweight exposure to the local general obligation sector relative to the Benchmark Index, with 23.39% exposure versus 14.41% Index weighting. Conversely, the ETF maintained underweight exposure to the state general obligation sector, with 8.21% exposure versus 28.74% for the Index, but increased exposure by several percentage points as opportunities arose. From a relative perspective, the ETF held exposure to Puerto Rico- and Guam-issued bonds that the Index did not hold. Lastly, the Index only holds investment-grade securities, while the ETF can hold up to 20% non-investment-grade securities. At the end of the reporting period, the ETF had 12.3% exposure to these lower-rated issuers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

Hypothetical Growth of a $10,000 Investment
(Since Inception through 4/30/23)

[MISSING IMAGE: lc_californiamuni-bw.jpg]

Fund Performance History

IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF
(as of April 30, 2023)

	1 Year		Since Inception1
	Avg Annual		Avg Annual		Cumulative
IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF Market Price2		2.33%		-7.55%		-10.12%
IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF NAV		2.28%		-7.59%		-10.17%
Bloomberg California Intermediate Municipal Bond Index3		4.32%		-3.09%		-4.17%

Fund Inception Date: 12/21/2021

The Bloomberg California Intermediate Municipal Bond Index is the primary benchmark index for the ETF. The Bloomberg California Intermediate Municipal Bond Index is an unmanaged index of investment grade tax-exempt California bonds with maturities of five to 10 years.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

IQ Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF

How did IQ Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF perform during the period since its inception on June 23, 2022, through April 30, 2023 (the “reporting period”)?

For the reporting period, IQ Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF returned 14.89% at NAV (net asset value) and 14.85% at market price.1 To compare, the ETF’s benchmark Index, the Russell 1000 Growth Index,2 returned 14.69% for the reporting period.

What factors affected the ETF’s performance during the reporting period?

Large-cap equities generated strong returns for the reporting period. Inflation concerns mellowed, and while the U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) continued to raise rates, 2-year and 10-year U.S. Treasury yields declined, with investors factoring in a nearer-term end to the tightening cycle. Markets also absorbed the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse and the flight of deposits away from many banks. One outcome may be the reduction of credit availability in coming months, further dampening economic activity and the need for future Fed rate hikes.

Multiple compression throughout much of 2022 presented attractive starting-point valuations for many companies with resilient and high compounding growth levels. The longer duration of their free cash flow generation positioned growth equities as key beneficiaries for interest rate stabilization, and even more so should rates decline.

During the reporting period, were there any market events that materially impacted the ETF’s performance or liquidity?

At the start of the reporting period, revenue expectations for many growth equities had been rebased to levels that could be exceeded even in a slowing macro environment. In addition, the 2022 market downturn prompted many company managements to reassess their expense structures. We have long believed that disciplined growth with an emphasis on free cash flow generation and prudent use of employee stock options are drivers of long-term strong stock performance. We view many companies’ increased focus on per-share earnings efficiency as an important inflection point for the markets; one that is poised to further propel growth equity outperformance.

During the reporting period, which sectors were the strongest positive contributors to the ETF’s relative performance and which sectors were particularly weak?

On the basis of impact, which takes weightings and total returns into account, the sectors that made the strongest contributions to the ETF’s performance relative to the Index were consumer discretionary and health care, driven by strong security selection. The sectors that made the weakest contributions to the ETF’s absolute performance were information technology and industrials, also driven by security selection.

During the reporting period, which individual stocks made the strongest positive contributions to the ETF’s absolute performance and which stocks detracted the most?

On the basis of impact, which takes weightings and total returns into consideration, the stocks that made the strongest contributions to the ETF’s absolute performance during the reporting period included semiconductor company NVIDIA and multi-national software, services and solutions provider Microsoft. We believe NVIDIA and Microsoft are both well positioned to benefit from the strong secular trends in generative AI (artificial intelligence).

During the same period, the weakest contributors to the ETF’s absolute performance were electric vehicle and energy generation and storage company Tesla and collaboration and productivity software provider Atlassian. Tesla detracted from performance amid concerns regarding demand and price cuts that the company would likely need to make to stimulate demand as production increases. After suffering through a

See page 26 for more information on index returns.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

period of weakening fundamentals in 2022, Atlassian management finally delivered realistic guidance in the first quarter of 2023 and initiated the company’s first-ever $1 billion buyback program.

How did the ETF’s sector weightings change during the reporting period?

During the reporting period, there were several material changes to the ETF’s positioning at the sector level. The largest decrease in exposure were in industrials and consumer staples, while the largest (and only material) increase was in information technology.

How was the ETF positioned at the end of the reporting period?

The ETF’s portfolio structure changed materially during the reporting period, reflecting the market’s factoring in a nearer-term end to the interest-rate tightening cycle. Our flexible “No Preferred Habitat” investment style allows our team to diversify the ETF’s assets across three different, yet complementary, types of growth companies: dynamic growth, consistent growth and cyclical growth. As of April 30, 2023, consistent growth continued to represent the ETF’s largest allocation. However, lowered expectations and a focus on earnings efficiency provided an opportunity to add to dynamic growth stocks at compelling valuations. Although dynamic growth remained the ETF’s smallest allocation in absolute terms, it increased to a larger overweight position relative to the Index. The ETF’s cyclical growth allocation remained a relatively underweight position, consistent with our slowing macroeconomic outlook for the remainder of 2023.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

Hypothetical Growth of a $10,000 Investment
(Since Inception through 4/30/23)

Fund Performance History

IQ Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF
(as of April 30, 2023)

	Since Inception1
	Cumulative
IQ Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF Market Price2		14.85%
IQ Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF NAV		14.89%
Russell 1000® Growth Index3		14.69%

Fund Inception Date: 6/23/2022

The Russell 1000® Growth Index is the primary benchmark index for the ETF. The Russell 1000® Growth Index measures the performance of the large-cap growth segment of the U.S. equity universe. It includes those Russell 1000® Index companies with higher price to-book ratios and higher forecasted growth values.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

IQ Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF

How did IQ Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF perform during the period since its inception on June 23, 2022, through April 30, 2023 (the “reporting period”)?

For the reporting period, IQ Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF returned 18.12% at NAV (net asset value) and 18.11% at market price.1 To compare, the ETF’s benchmark Index, the Russell 1000 Growth Index,2 returned 14.69% for the reporting period.

What factors affected the ETF’s performance during the reporting period?

During the reporting period, were there any market events that materially impacted the ETF’s performance or liquidity?

During the reporting period, which sectors were the strongest positive contributors to the ETF’s relative performance and which sectors were particularly weak?

On the basis of impact, which takes weightings and total returns into account, the sectors that made the strongest contributions to the ETF’s performance relative to the Index were consumer discretionary and energy, driven by strong security selection. The sectors that made the weakest contributions to the ETF’s absolute performance were consumer staples and information technology, also predominantly driven by security selection.

During the reporting period, which individual stocks made the strongest positive contributions to the ETF’s absolute performance and which stocks detracted the most?

On the basis of impact, which takes weightings and total returns into consideration, the stocks that made the strongest contributions to the ETF’s absolute performance during the reporting period were semiconductor company NVIDIA and fast-food restaurant Chipotle Mexican Grill. We believe NVIDIA is likely to benefit from the strong secular trends in generative AI (artificial intelligence). We continue to like Chipotle’s 8-10% unit growth, mid-to-high single-digit same-store comps, and expanding margins due to improved productivity and the expansion of “Chipotlanes”, Chipotle’s pick-up window that is strictly used for online orders that are placed using Chipotle’s mobile app.

See page 29 for more information on index returns.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

During the same period, the weakest contributors to the ETF’s absolute performance were cosmetics firm The Estée Lauder Companies and Alphabet, parent company of Google. Estée Lauder reported weak results in the first half of the reporting period as sales continued to suffer from weak trends in China. We exited the ETF’s position in the fourth quarter of 2022 in favor of more attractive opportunities. Alphabet saw operating margins come under pressure due to a slowdown in topline growth, though later in the reporting period the company implemented expense controls and rationalized costs. Alphabet continues to benefit from the growth in digital advertising and has accelerated growth in its cloud businesses.

How did the ETF’s sector weightings change during the reporting period?

During the reporting period, there were several material changes to the ETF’s positioning at the sector level. The largest decrease in exposure were in health care and consumer staples, while the largest increases were in information technology and financials.

How was the ETF positioned at the end of the reporting period?

The ETF’s portfolio structure changed materially during the reporting period, reflecting the market’s factoring in a nearer-term end to the interest-rate tightening cycle. As of April 30, 2023, the two largest positions in the ETF were Tesla and Iberdrola. Tesla is a multinational automotive and clean energy company. The company designs and manufactures electric vehicles, battery energy storage from home to grid scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles and related products and services. Iberdrola generates, distributes, trades and markets electricity in the U.K., United States, Spain, Portugal and Latin America. The company specializes in clean energy generated by wind power.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance (unaudited) (continued)

Hypothetical Growth of a $10,000 Investment
(Since Inception through 4/30/23)

[MISSING IMAGE: lc_focusedlargcap-bw.jpg]

Fund Performance History

IQ Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
(as of April 30, 2023)

	Since Inception1
	Cumulative
IQ Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF Market Price2		18.11%
IQ Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF NAV		18.12%
Russell 1000® Growth Index3		14.69%

Fund Inception Date: 6/23/2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Fund Expenses (unaudited)

As a shareholder of a fund, you incur two types of costs: (1) transaction costs on purchases and sales and (2) ongoing costs, including Advisory fees and other fund expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) of investing in a fund and to compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other funds. Shareholders may pay brokerage commissions on their purchase and sale of a Fund, which are not reflected in the example.

The examples are based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period as indicated below.

Actual Expenses

The first line of the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information together with the amount you invested, in a particular fund, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During the Period 11/01/22 to 04/30/23” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period. Each Fund will indirectly bear its pro rata share of the expenses incurred by any underlying Fund investments in which each Fund invests. These expenses are not included in the table.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

The second line of the table below also provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on each Fund’s actual expense ratio and an assumed annual rate of return of 5% before expenses, which are not the Funds’ actual returns. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in a fund and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of other funds. The Funds will indirectly bear their pro rata share of the expenses incurred by any underlying fund investments in which the Funds invest. These expenses are not included in the table.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any transactional costs. Therefore, the hypothetical example is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these transactional costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

	Beginning Account Value 11/01/22			Ending Account Value 04/30/23			Annualized Expense Ratios for the Period 11/01/22 to 04/30/23		Expenses Paid for Period 11/01/22 to 04/30/231
IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF
Actual		$	1,000.00		$	1,028.60		0.19%		$	0.96
Hypothetical (assuming a 5% return before expenses)		$	1,000.00		$	1,023.85		0.19%		$	0.95
IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF
Actual		$	1,000.00		$	1,075.20		0.37%		$	1.90
Hypothetical (assuming a 5% return before expenses)		$	1,000.00		$	1,022.96		0.37%		$	1.86
IQ MacKay Multi-Sector Income ETF
Actual		$	1,000.00		$	1,080.90		0.40%		$	2.06
Hypothetical (assuming a 5% return before expenses)		$	1,000.00		$	1,022.81		0.40%		$	2.01
IQ MacKay ESG High Income ETF
Actual		$	1,000.00		$	1,066.00		0.40%		$	2.05
Hypothetical (assuming a 5% return before expenses)		$	1,000.00		$	1,022.81		0.40%		$	2.01
IQ MacKay Municipal Insured ETF
Actual		$	1,000.00		$	1,093.80		0.28%		$	1.45
Hypothetical (assuming a 5% return before expenses)		$	1,000.00		$	1,023.41		0.28%		$	1.40
IQ MacKay Municipal Intermediate ETF
Actual		$	1,000.00		$	1,070.60		0.29%		$	1.49
Hypothetical (assuming a 5% return before expenses)		$	1,000.00		$	1,023.36		0.29%		$	1.45

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Fund Expenses (unaudited) (continued)

	Beginning Account Value 11/01/22			Ending Account Value 04/30/23			Annualized Expense Ratios for the Period 11/01/22 to 04/30/23		Expenses Paid for Period 11/01/22 to 04/30/231
IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF
Actual		$	1,000.00		$	1,066.00		0.33%		$	1.69
Hypothetical (assuming a 5% return before expenses)		$	1,000.00		$	1,023.16		0.33%		$	1.66
IQ Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF
Actual		$	1,000.00		$	1,127.80		0.60%		$	3.17
Hypothetical (assuming a 5% return before expenses)		$	1,000.00		$	1,021.82		0.60%		$	3.01
IQ Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
Actual		$	1,000.00		$	1,141.20		0.65%		$	3.45
Hypothetical (assuming a 5% return before expenses)		$	1,000.00		$	1,021.57		0.65%		$	3.26

Unless otherwise indicated, expenses are calculated using the Fund’s annualized expense ratio, multiplied by the average account value for the period, multiplied by 181/365. (to reflect the one-half year period).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Portfolio Summaries* (Unaudited)

April 30, 2023

IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF
Net Assets ($ mil): $54.9

Country	% of Net Assets
United States		79.3%
Cayman Islands		10.3
Ireland		1.9
United Kingdom		1.8
Germany		1.2
Canada		1.0
Netherlands		0.8
Sweden		0.6
Denmark		0.5
New Zealand		0.5
Switzerland		0.5
Italy		0.4
Japan		0.4
Total Investments		99.2
Other Assets and Liabilites, Net		0.8
Net Assets		100.0%

IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF
Net Assets ($ mil): $242.5

Country	% of Net Assets
United States		86.7%
United Kingdom		2.4
France		1.9
Germany		1.4
Japan		1.2
Canada		0.9
Australia		0.9
Switzerland		0.6
Brazil		0.4
Israel		0.4
Spain		0.4
Italy		0.4
Netherlands		0.3
Luxembourg		0.3
Ireland		0.3
Sweden		0.2
Supranational		0.2
Colombia		0.2
Total Investments		99.1
Other Assets and Liabilites, Net		0.9
Net Assets		100.0%

Each Fund’s portfolio is subject to change.

(a)

Less than 0.05%.

IQ MacKay Multi-Sector Income ETF
Net Assets ($ mil): $24.3

Country	% of Net Assets
United States		87.3%
France		2.0
United Kingdom		1.4
Saudi Arabia		0.8
Chile		0.8
Canada		0.8
China		0.8
Malaysia		0.7
Indonesia		0.7
Qatar		0.6
Germany		0.6
Switzerland		0.6
Israel		0.5
Colombia		0.5
Australia		0.4
Mexico		0.3
Ireland		0.3
Netherlands		0.1
Finland		0.0(a)
Total Investments		99.2
Other Assets and Liabilites, Net		0.8
Net Assets		100.0%

IQ MacKay ESG High Income ETF
Net Assets ($ mil): $26.0

Country	% of Net Assets
United States		83.5%
Canada		6.0
United Kingdom		2.6
France		2.5
Italy		2.4
Netherlands		1.3
Israel		0.6
Finland		0.4
Total Investments		99.3
Other Assets and Liabilites, Net		0.7
Net Assets		100.0%

See notes to financial statements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Portfolio Summaries* (Unaudited) (continued)

April 30, 2023

IQ MacKay Municipal Insured ETF
Net Assets ($ mil): $363.1

Industry	% of Net Assets
General Obligation		23.9%
School District		21.6
General		13.6
Transportation		6.5
Water		5.3
Education		4.7
Airport		4.5
Development		4.4
Higher Education		4.3
Power		3.1
Medical		2.8
Mello-Roos		1.4
Housing		1.3
Utilities		0.9
Money Market Fund		0.6
Student Loan		0.0(a)
Total Investments		98.9
Other Assets and Liabilites, Net		1.1
Net Assets		100.0%

IQ MacKay Municipal Intermediate ETF
Net Assets ($ mil): $414.5

Industry	% of Net Assets
General		18.2%
General Obligation		18.0
School District		11.3
Water		10.1
Multifamily Hsg		8.2
Medical		6.2
Transportation		5.5
Higher Education		5.3
Education		3.1
Power		2.8
Utilities		2.4
Airport		1.7
Build America Bonds		1.0
Development		0.9
Nursing Homes		0.8
Bond Bank		0.8
Pollution		0.6
Mello-Roos		0.6
Single Family Hsg		0.5
Housing		0.4
Money Market Fund		0.1
Tobacco Settlement		0.1
Facilities		0.1
Student Loan		0.1
Total Investments		98.8
Other Assets and Liabilites, Net		1.2
Net Assets		100.0%

Each Fund’s portfolio is subject to change.

(a)

Less than 0.05%.

IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF
Net Assets ($ mil): $50.8

Industry	% of Net Assets
School District		19.6%
General		17.7
General Obligation		14.8
Airport		11.8
Development		10.1
Utilities		4.6
Power		4.1
Water		4.0
Medical		3.8
Money Market Fund		2.1
Facilities		2.0
Mello-Roos		1.9
Higher Education		1.7
Multifamily Hsg		0.8
Total Investments		99.0
Other Assets and Liabilites, Net		1.0
Net Assets		100.0%

IQ Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF
Net Assets ($ mil): $18.7

Industry	% of Net Assets
Information Technology		43.3%
Health Care		16.2
Consumer Discretionary		14.6
Financials		8.5
Communication Services		6.9
Consumer Staples		4.4
Industrials		3.5
Materials		2.2
Money Market Fund		1.3
Total Investments		100.9
Other Assets and Liabilites, Net		(0.9)
Net Assets		100.0%

See notes to financial statements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Schedule of Investments — IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF

April 30, 2023

	Principal Amount			Value
Long-Term Bonds — 94.0%
Commercial Asset-Backed Securities — 14.1%
Asset Backed Securities — 14.1%
Amur Equipment Finance Receivables XI LLC
Series 2022-2A A2, 5.300%, due 6/21/28		$	207,700		$	206,498
Avis Budget Rental Car Funding AESOP LLC
Series 2018-1A A, 3.700%, due 9/20/24			416,667			414,900
Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2018-REV2
Series 2018-2 A, 3.470%, due 1/15/30			500,000			497,991
Ford Credit Floorplan Master Owner Trust A
Series 2019-2 A, 3.060%, due 4/15/26			500,000			488,333
Hertz Vehicle Financing III LLC
Series 2022-3A A, 3.370%, due 3/25/25			500,000			490,701
Neuberger Berman Loan Advisers CLO 32 Ltd., (Cayman Islands)
Series 2019-32A BR, 6.665%, (3-Month LIBOR + 1.40%), due 1/20/32(a)			1,000,000			966,981
Oak Hill Credit Partners, (Cayman Islands)
Series 2021-8A A, 6.452%, (3-Month LIBOR + 1.19%), due 1/18/34(a)			750,000			739,737
Octagon Investment Partners 51 Ltd., (Cayman Islands)
Series 2021-1A A, 6.400%, (3-Month LIBOR + 1.15%), due 7/20/34(a)			1,000,000			978,862
Palmer Square CLO 2021-2 Ltd., (Cayman Islands)
Series 2021-2A A, 6.410%, (3-Month LIBOR + 1.15%), due 7/15/34(a)			1,000,000			980,549
Romark CLO IV Ltd., (Cayman Islands)
Series 2021-4A A1, 6.381%, (3-Month LIBOR + 1.17%), due 7/10/34(a)			1,000,000			980,906
TICP CLO XV Ltd., (Cayman Islands)
Series 2020-15A A, 6.530%, (3-Month LIBOR + 1.28%), due 4/20/33(a)			1,000,000			989,942
						7,735,400
Total Commercial Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $7,844,557)						7,735,400
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security — 0.9%
Mortgage Securities — 0.9%
Queens Center Mortgage Trust 2013-QC
Series 2013-QCA A, 3.275%, due 1/11/37
(Cost $527,067)			500,000			465,993

	Principal Amount			Value
Corporate Bonds — 40.4%
Basic Materials — 0.4%
Celanese US Holdings LLC
6.330%, due 7/15/29		$	210,000		$	212,743
Communications — 3.2%
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
1.500%, due 2/15/26			665,000			609,378
2.625%, due 4/15/26			345,000			323,595
Verizon Communications, Inc.
5.610%, (SOFR + 0.79%), due 3/20/26(a)			830,000			824,197
						1,757,170
Consumer, Cyclical — 1.2%
General Motors Financial Co., Inc.
6.050%, due 10/10/25			325,000			328,501
Warnermedia Holdings, Inc.
3.428%, due 3/15/24			300,000			293,439
						621,940
Consumer, Non-cyclical — 3.5%
Amgen, Inc.
5.150%, due 3/2/28			205,000			209,820
Global Payments, Inc.
1.500%, due 11/15/24			450,000			424,779
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings
3.250%, due 9/1/24			575,000			561,653
Mondelez International, Inc.
2.125%, due 3/17/24			480,000			467,501
PayPal Holdings, Inc.
3.900%, due 6/1/27			210,000			207,440
						1,871,193
Energy — 1.4%
Energy Transfer LP
5.550%, due 2/15/28			210,000			214,112
ONEOK, Inc.
5.850%, due 1/15/26			235,000			239,679
Plains All American Pipeline LP / PAA Finance Corp.
4.500%, due 12/15/26			335,000			328,937
						782,728
Financial — 18.3%
Air Lease Corp.
0.800%, due 8/18/24			860,000			807,531
American Express Co.
3.950%, due 8/1/25			605,000			593,240
Bank of America Corp.
4.200%, due 8/26/24			1,025,000			1,011,100
5.080%, (SOFR + 1.29%), due 1/20/27(a)			495,000			494,056
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (The)
4.543%, (SOFR + 1.17%), due 2/1/29(a)			215,000			213,688
4.947%, (SOFR + 1.03%), due 4/26/27			135,000			135,975

See notes to financial statements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Schedule of Investments — IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF (continued)

April 30, 2023

	Principal Amount			Value
Corporate Bonds (continued)
Financial (continued)
Blackstone Holdings Finance Co. LLC
5.900%, due 11/3/27		$	230,000		$	235,963
Blackstone Private Credit Fund
7.050%, due 9/29/25			220,000			220,305
Capital One Financial Corp.
4.166%, (SOFR + 1.37%), due 5/9/25(a)			640,000			623,168
Citigroup, Inc.
5.610%, (SOFR + 1.55%), due 9/29/26(a)			295,000			298,435
Citizens Bank NA/Providence RI
6.064%, (SOFR + 1.45%), due 10/24/25(a)			250,000			241,914
Corebridge Financial, Inc.
3.500%, due 4/4/25			760,000			730,217
Fifth Third Bancorp
6.361%, (SOFR + 2.19%), due 10/27/28(a)			500,000			516,014
HSBC USA, Inc.
5.625%, due 3/17/25			300,000			302,304
Huntington National Bank (The)
4.008%, (SOFR + 1.21%), due 5/16/25(a)			675,000			650,610
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
3.845%, (SOFR + 0.98%), due 6/14/25(a)			725,000			711,781
5.546%, (SOFR + 1.07%), due 12/15/25(a)			210,000			210,945
Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.
5.400%, due 11/21/25			250,000			244,185
Morgan Stanley
4.679%, (SOFR + 1.67%), due 7/17/26(a)			400,000			396,700
5.050%, (SOFR + 1.30%), due 1/28/27(a)			650,000			651,722
Morgan Stanley Bank NA
4.754%, due 4/21/26			250,000			251,242
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (The)
4.758%, (SOFR + 1.09%), due 1/26/27(a)			125,000			123,572
State Street Corp.
4.857%, (SOFR + 0.60%), due 1/26/26(a)			85,000			84,864
Truist Financial Corp.
4.873%, (SOFR + 1.44%), due 1/26/29(a)			105,000			102,780
US Bancorp
4.653%, (SOFR + 1.23%), due 2/1/29(a)			220,000			214,074
						10,066,385
Industrial — 0.1%
Berry Global, Inc.
5.500%, due 4/15/28			70,000			70,041

	Principal Amount			Value
Corporate Bonds (continued)
Technology — 0.9%
Micron Technology, Inc.
5.375%, due 4/15/28		$	120,000		$	119,606
6.750%, due 11/1/29			60,000			63,229
Oracle Corp.
5.800%, due 11/10/25			315,000			322,862
						505,697
Utilities — 11.4%
American Electric Power Co., Inc.
2.031%, due 3/15/24			165,000			159,808
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
5.369%, (SOFR + 0.65%), due 5/13/24(a)			1,445,000			1,438,410
Entergy Louisiana LLC
0.620%, due 11/17/23			374,000			364,491
Eversource Energy
Series T, 4.974%, (SOFR + 0.25%), due 8/15/23(a)			1,585,000			1,583,526
Florida Power & Light Co.
5.050%, due 4/1/28			220,000			227,788
Nextera Energy Capital Holdings, Inc.
6.051%, due 3/1/25			95,000			96,580
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
3.250%, due 2/16/24			560,000			548,171
4.200%, due 3/1/29			378,000			350,028
Sempra Energy
3.300%, due 4/1/25			290,000			281,570
Southern California Edison Co.
1.100%, due 4/1/24

	IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF (ULTR)
	IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF (ESGB)
	IQ MacKay Multi-Sector Income ETF (MMSB)
	IQ MacKay ESG High Income ETF (IQHI)
	IQ MacKay Municipal Insured ETF (MMIN)
	IQ MacKay Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMIT)
	IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF (MMCA)
	IQ Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG)
	IQ Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG)

	Shareholder Letter					4
	Management’s Discussion of Fund Performance					5
	Fund Expenses					30
	Portfolio Summaries					32
	Schedules of Investments
	IQ Ultra Short Duration ETF					35
	IQ MacKay ESG Core Plus Bond ETF					39
	IQ MacKay Multi-Sector Income ETF					53
	IQ MacKay ESG High Income ETF					66
	IQ MacKay Municipal Insured ETF					72
	IQ MacKay Municipal Intermediate ETF					80
	IQ MacKay California Municipal Intermediate ETF					91
	IQ Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF					94
	IQ Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF					95
	Statements of Assets and Liabilities					96
	Statements of Operations					99
	Statements of Changes in Net Assets					102
	Financial Highlights					107
	Notes to Financial Statements					116
	Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm					134
	Liquidity Risk Management Program					136
	Supplemental Information					137
	Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement					138
	Board of Trustees and Officers					143